The government is using Federal defendants as snitches, many times without defense counsel involved. If you or a loved one is a victim of this common practice, call Nemann Law Offices without hesitation.

The prisoners in Atlanta’s hulking downtown jail had a problem. They wanted to snitch for federal agents, but they didn’t know anything worth telling.

Fellow prisoner Marcus Watkins, an armed robber, had the answer.

For a fee, Watkins and his associates on the outside sold them information about other criminals that they could turn around and offer up to federal agents in hopes of shaving years off their prison sentences. They were paying for information, but what they were really trying to buy was freedom.

“I didn’t feel as though any laws were being broken,” Watkins wrote in a 2008 letter to prosecutors. “I really thought I was helping out law enforcement.”

That pay-to-snitch enterprise – documented in thousands of pages of court records, interviews and a stack of Watkins’ own letters – remains almost entirely unknown outside Atlanta’s towering federal courthouse, where investigators are still trying to determine whether any criminal cases were compromised. It offers a rare glimpse inside a vast and almost always secret part of the federal criminal justice system in which prosecutors routinely use the promise of reduced prison time to reward prisoners who help federal agents build cases against other criminals.

Snitching has become so commonplace that in the past five years at least 48,895 federal convicts — one of every eight — had their prison sentences reduced in exchange for helping government investigators, a USA TODAY examination of hundreds of thousands of court cases found. The deals can chop a decade or more off of their sentences.

How often informants pay to acquire information from brokers such as Watkins is impossible to know, in part because judges routinely seal court records that could identify them. It almost certainly represents an extreme result of a system that puts strong pressure on defendants to cooperate. Still, Watkins’ case is at least the fourth such scheme to be uncovered in Atlanta alone over the past 20 years.

Those schemes are generally illegal because the people who buy information usually lie to federal agents about where they got it. They also show how staggeringly valuable good information has become – prices ran into tens of thousands of dollars, or up to $250,000 in one case, court records show.

John Horn, the second in command of Atlanta’s U.S. attorney’s office, said the “investigation on some of these matters is continuing” but would not elaborate.

Prosecutors have said they were troubled that informants were paying for some of the secrets they passed on to federal agents. Judges are outraged. But the inmates who operated the schemes have repeatedly alleged that agents knew all along what they were up to, and sometimes even gave them the information they sold. Prosecutors told a judge in October that an investigation found those accusations were false. Still, court records show, agents kept interviewing at least one of Watkins’ customers even after the FBI learned of the scheme.

The risks are obvious. If the government rewards paid-for information, wealthy defendants could potentially buy early freedom. Because such a system further muddies the question of how informants — already widely viewed as untrustworthy — know what they claim to know, “individual cases can be undermined and the system itself is compromised,” U.S. Justice Department lawyers said in a 2010 court filing.

Snitching becomes big business

Cooperating with investigators is one way people charged with federal crimes can escape tough prison sentences. This map shows the percentage of federal convictions from 2006 to 2011 where sentences were reduced in exchange for “substantial assistance” (SA), according to a USA TODAY investigation.  The darker the area within the District Court’s jurisdiction, the more instances of sentence reduction due to cooperating with the government.

Before Watkins became an informant, he was a prolific armed robber.

In 1995, he held up a string of shops and restaurants, sometimes robbing the same place more than once, and sometimes pulling more than one robbery a day, according to court records. The last time he was arrested, in 2006, Atlanta police said he asked a supermarket clerk for a pack of cigarettes, stepped back, pulled a handgun and yelled “robbery.” He fled before he got any money, employees caught him, and federal prosecutors hit him with a gun charge that could have put him in prison for the rest of his life.

By then, Watkins had been a federal informant for a decade, he said in a letter to USA TODAY. He claimed he once wore a wire inside a prison to help catch another man who was selling information to would-be witnesses. That man, Gregory Harris, later confessed, but, in an unusual move, the government agreed to halve the 20-year prison sentence Harris was already serving in exchange for his cooperation in other cases. (Harris was found dead this year inside the trunk of a burning car.)

And so began a career of trying to cash in on what he knew.

Pressure, and plenty of cooperation

People charged with federal crimes don’t have many ways to avoid a tough sentence.

Nearly everyone charged is convicted. They usually face the prospect of a lengthy prison term, driven by long minimum sentences for drug crimes and sentencing rules that leave judges little leeway to make exceptions – unless they cooperate. Often, becoming an informant is the only chance defendants have.

An experienced lawyer who knows what his client has been charged with “can ask a client three or four questions, and you can get 95% accuracy on the sentencing range within 10 minutes … unless he has something to trade,” said Tim Saviello, a John Marshall Law School professor and former federal public defender in Atlanta. “People are willing to pay $20,000 or $30,000 to get a piece of information. That tells you how valuable it is.”

Every year for the past decade, 11% or more of the people convicted of a federal crime got a shorter sentence because they provided “substantial assistance” to investigators, a USA TODAY examination of federal sentencing data shows. That figure almost certainly understates the extent to which defendants cooperate because some get breaks that aren’t reflected in court records and others only pass on information that the government doesn’t find useful.

In return, prisoners offer up names and addresses of drug dealers. They wear recording devices or let police listen to their phone calls. They introduce undercover agents to their contacts inside crime organizations.

That kind of help has become indispensable for law enforcement. The Drug Enforcement Administration told the Justice Department’s inspector general in 2005 that it “could not effectively enforce the controlled-substances laws of the United States” without its confidential sources.

Cooperation is especially common when drugs are involved. Nationwide, at least a quarter of the people sent to federal prison in drug-trafficking cases over the past five years successfully traded information for a shorter sentence. In some parts of the country – including Idaho, Colorado and western New York – more than half did, while in Nebraska, fewer than 5% of convicted drug traffickers got deals. One reason is that some prosecutors’ offices demand far more cooperation to get a deal.

The benefits can be huge. Last year, half of the defendants who cooperated with the government got their sentences chopped by 50% or more, according to a U.S. Sentencing Commission report. People convicted of some white-collar crimes such as bribery and tax evasion usually avoid prison entirely.

It’s up to Justice Department lawyers to decide who gets a break.

A jailhouse enterprise

Watkins’ business plan was simple.

His associates on the outside collected information about drug dealers and other criminals, and he offered to sell it to other prisoners at the Atlanta City Detention Center who had money but lacked the facts or criminal contacts to cooperate with the government on their own. Sometimes the money ended up in a jail account that inmates use to buy commissary items, according to court records.

In exchange, he would deliver “packages” of information that his customers could share with federal agents looking to open new cases or buttress old ones.

The trouble was most of what Watkins had to sell was “classic street-level information” that was of little interest to federal agents looking to take down major drug traffickers, said Robert McBurney, who worked a related case when he was a federal prosecutor in Atlanta. He said Justice Department lawyers were uncomfortable shortening one prisoner’s sentence as a reward for someone else’s information, and doubly so when the would-be informants concealed the fact that their information was secondhand.

And then there was the money. “There were discussions that, if the information he relayed is valid, maybe he’s an entrepreneur. If he chooses to get money instead of a reduction in sentence, Adam Smith would applaud that,” McBurney said, invoking the 18th-century economist. But prosecutors didn’t take the same view.

Watkins said he didn’t see the problem. “The biggest buyer of information is the government,” he said during a brief phone call from a detention center in Georgia. “But they pay in years.”

He claimed during a phone call that the agents who debriefed him “knew money’s been changing hands,” and his lawyer said in court filings that it should have been obvious to investigators that Watkins was getting outside information. “They basically authorized all of this,” Watkins said. He said he is still providing information to federal agents, an allegation that prosecutors have disputed.

Watkins’ enterprise didn’t come to light until the summer of 2008, when another inmate contacted prosecutors looking for a deal – with information about Watkins. (He got one.) Watkins later told the FBI that he had brokered deals for four inmates. James Rochester, the informant who turned him in – and had been intercepting his mail – told federal prosecutors through his lawyer that he thought there were at least a dozen customers. Watkins himself wrote to agents and prosecutors admitting that he had acted as a broker for other prisoners seeking information.

McBurney said prosecutors tried to review all cases that could have been tainted by Watkins’ scheme. “It’s a pernicious situation that, sadly, undid some good works,” McBurney said. But FBI agent Mile Brosas testified in December 2010 that agents went “just based on the names that Mr. Watkins gave us.”

Neither Watkins nor his customers were ever prosecuted for the scheme. At least one actually won a reduced sentence.

Watkins is still angling to get his own sentence reduced.

He pleaded guilty to a federal gun charge in 2007; in exchange, the government promised in a written plea agreement to recommend a 30-year sentence. But five and a half years later, he still hasn’t been sentenced. Part of the reason is that he’s still trying to get a judge to force the Justice Department to give him a “substantial assistance” reduction as a reward for the help he said he has given to state and federal agents.

The Justice Department “feigns dismay that Marcus Watkins was allegedly buying and selling information when the Government had been legally buying information from him over a lengthy period of time,” his lawyer, Martin Cowen III, alleged in one court filing. He said it should have been obvious to agents by 2008 that Watkins – who had been in prison for two years by then – couldn’t have been giving them current information about criminals unless he was getting it from someone outside the jail.

The government, Cowen said, was “‘shocked, shocked’ to find that information was being sold in the jail.”

But if prosecutors weren’t actually surprised, Atlanta’s chief federal judge was. At a hearing in 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Julie Carnes excoriated the “abominable situation” of prisoners trading for outside information, and said she was “appalled that it’s going on to the level it appears to be going on.” The scheme, she said, could let the wealthy buy their way to reduced sentences, conjuring images of Hessian mercenaries of the Revolutionary War.

Carnes still hasn’t decided what to do with Watkins.

Information has a price

Watkins’ enterprise wasn’t the only time someone here figured out how much information was worth.

In 2010, federal prosecutors indicted another man, Sandeo Dyson — an Army medic locked up on charges that he had tried to burn down a strip club for money — for running a similar scheme out of the same jail at the same time as Watkins. His customers paid $5,000 and $10,000 for information they hoped would win them lighter sentences. Prosecutors said he made $50,000 selling information to four other inmates.

Dyson pleaded guilty to a charge of encouraging his customers to lie to agents about the source of their information and was sentenced to 18 more months in prison.

U.S. District Judge Richard Story had planned to lock Dyson up longer. But by the time Dyson’s attorney, Barry Lombardo, finished sketching the history of the pay-to-snitch business in Atlanta, Story instead sentenced him to the bottom end of what the federal sentencing guidelines said was appropriate, Lombardo said. (The transcript of that hearing remains sealed.)

In 2000, prosecutors here convicted Harris.

Four years before that, agents charged a prominent local defense lawyer, Robert Fierer, and his former drug-dealer client, Kevin Pappas, with running an even bigger information-for-sale enterprise. Their customers were quoted prices up to $250,000 for information that they hoped might help them go home sooner, according to court records.

To get a deal, Pappas said, people needed the right kind of information about the right kind of criminal – solid information about someone significant enough to be worth a federal agent’s time, but not so ironclad that they’d ever be asked to testify. “The key is you got to know what the point of interest is in a given office today,” he said.

The prosecutor who put the pair in prison, Buddy Parker, says he understands the pressures that made the information so valuable. “The only way to avoid a long sentence was to cut a cooperation deal. People without information, they’re screwed,” he said. “The guy who was the greatest criminal had the greatest likelihood of getting a low sentence.”

Fierer got a two-and-a-half-year sentence. But he went home early after he gave agents information about another case.

Following the information, and the money

Watkins’ information is still reverberating through one drug case.

In early 2008, an Atlanta jail inmate facing mortgage fraud charges approached FBI agents with information about a drug trafficker who was dealing in tractor-trailer loads of marijuana and cocaine. Leon Lumsden was by then practiced at trying to use information to win a deal. At his sentencing hearing that July, so many federal agents showed up on his behalf that the judge gave him an even bigger sentence reduction than prosecutors had sought.

The prosecutor on Lumsden’s case, Gale McKenzie, had warned state and federal officers that his “credibility was nil.” Still, she wrote in a September, 2008 e-mail, “many from state and federal law enforcement debriefed him and reported receiving verified information of value as well as making arrests based on his cooperation.”

But the information about the drug dealer panned out. Marlon Burton — “Bird” on the street — lived in a country club south of Atlanta and traveled in a Mercedes; he had a direct connection to a Mexican cartel, according to court records.

What was less clear was how Lumsden — a white-collar crook — knew about him. During a phone interview this month, Watkins said he provided the information about Burton to Lumsden, and that he was compensated for it. Court records show he had previously offered the same facts to federal investigators.

Lumsden insisted that the information he got from Watkins was worthless. “I didn’t benefit from all the garbage he gave me,” he said during a brief phone call from a Georgia prison. “Everything he gave me was straight BS.”

A reliable source, and more arrests

Still, in November of 2008, the FBI used Lumsden’s information to ask a federal judge to let agents wiretap the trafficker’s cellphone. He was an important part of the case because the agents’ other informant hadn’t done business with Burton in years, meaning a judge might think it was too stale to justify a wiretap. The agent who signed the wiretap application, Nikki Badolato, told the judge that Lumsden was “reliable.”

Badolato later testified that she didn’t know that Lumsden had been buying information because his name was misspelled in an FBI database.

The FBI got its wiretap. Agents arrested Burton the next year.

Burton in turn informed on the other members of his organization. In return, prosecutors chopped a decade off his prison sentence, a bargain the judge called “more than generous.” One of the people Burton implicated was the owner of a Lithonia, Ga., machine shop where he said he would park, and sometimes unload, truckloads of marijuana and cocaine.

Agents arrested the owner, Ivey Grant, in the drive-through line of a Sonic Drive-In. It was the first time Grant, 61, had been charged with a crime, and when FBI agents booked him they found his hands were so scoured by years of labor that his fingerprints had worn away.

Grant is serving nine years in federal prison.

He insists he didn’t know what was in Burton’s trucks; to him, they were just like any of the other big rigs and dump trucks that rent space in the shop’s dusty parking lot. Now he’s asking a federal appeals court in Atlanta to overturn his conviction, saying that the judge who approved the wiretap that ensnared him should have been told about the shaky informants behind it.

Sitting in a cinder-block prison office in Atlanta’s federal prison last month, Grant sounded more confused than angry about how he ended up facing almost a decade in custody. “I don’t think it’s right for a convicted felon to get up on the stand in front of honest citizens and convict other people,” he said.

But with seven years to go, he sees the appeal.

“If someone says you can go home today if you say that box is blue,” he said, stabbing a thick finger at a big, white cardboard box in the corner of the office and grinning, “then that box is blue.”

Houston Drug Trafficking Lawyer

Federal Drug Crimes Lawyer Robert Fickman Successfully Representing Clients under Investigation and Charged with Federal Drug Offenses.

Robert Fickman is an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer with over 40+ years of experience vigorously defending individuals who have been investigated or charged with federal drug offenses. Robert Fickman has an AV rating with Martindale-Hubbell. That is Martindale-Hubbell’s highest rating. Mr. Fickman has been recognized for many years by Thomson Reuters as a Houston area Criminal Defense Super Lawyer.

Mr. Fickman has obtained the dismissal of federal drug charges. He has convinced judges to throw out federal drug charges. More importantly, he has won federal drug conspiracy trials. Most recently, on August 8, 2022, Mr. Fickman won a federal drug conspiracy trial in United States v. Cristian Rebolledo. The case involved 56 indicted defendants. Most of the defendants pled guilty. Mr. Fickman’s client, Mr. Rebolledo, was one of the few who held out and went to trial. Of the 56 indicted defendants in the case, Mr. Fickman’s client, Mr. Rebolledo, was the only client to be found NOT GUILTY. Mr. Fickman received congratulations from over 300 of his colleagues for this tremendous victory.

Robert Fickman Teaches Other Lawyers How to Defend Federal Drug Crimes

For many years Mr. Fickman has been invited to teach other lawyers how to defend those charged with federal drug offenses. In 2010 and 2014, Mr. Fickman taught at the l National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Annual “Defending Modern Drug Cases” seminar in Las Vegas, Nevada. His topic was “How to Cross a Snitch.” Mr. Fickman taught other defense lawyers how to cross-examine snitches. Mr. Fickman is a highly-rated speaker. In 2010, 2014, and 2022 he was featured on the NACDL “Best Speakers of the Year” DVD. On September 30, 2022, Mr. Fickman again spoke at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Annual “Defending Modern Drug Cases” Seminar in Las Vegas, Nevada. Once again, Mr. Fickman taught other criminal lawyers “How to Cross a Snitch.”

Mr. Fickman has taught other criminal defense lawyers from across the country how to defend federal drug cases. He has appeared as a guest speaker at criminal defense legal seminars in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Memphis, Pensacola, and Maine.

In Texas, Mr. Fickman has appeared as an invited guest speaker at criminal law seminars in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Galveston, and Round Rock.

Robert Fickman has successfully defended people from all walks of life who have found themselves facing serious federal drug charges.

Federal Drug Investigations

Federal drug investigations can be complicated, and they can go on for lengthy periods of time. If you believe you are under investigation for being involved in a federal drug offense, you should immediately contact Federal Drug Crimes Lawyer Robert Fickman.

Do Not Talk to Anyone– Most importantly, you should not speak to any federal or state law enforcement agent. If you believe you are under investigation, you should immediately retain counsel to protect your legal rights. Robert Fickman has successfully defended people who were under investigation and kept them from being charged with federal offenses.

Federal Law enforcement agents employ several different techniques to investigate federal drug offenses. Listed below are common investigative tools that federal agents use:

Confidential Informants– Quite often, federal investigations will begin when federal agents receive information from an informant who identifies a person or persons alleged to be involved in federal drug trafficking.

Surveillance- Federal agents often set up physical surveillance on the suspected drug trafficker. Surveillance may come in different forms. Federal agents may watch a suspect’s home or business to identify who comes and goes from the home or business. Federal agents may also follow the suspect when he drives to see what locations he frequents and who he visits; It is not unusual for federal agents to make surveillance videotapes or still photos of suspected drug deals and drug dealers.

Background Investigation– Federal agents will always run the criminal record of any suspected drug trafficker. If they find that the suspect has any prior criminal record involving drugs, that will strengthen their belief that the suspect may, in fact, be trafficking. Federal agents will also investigate the suspect’s work history. If the suspect has a job, federal agents may check out the suspect’s job to see if it appears legitimate employment or a front for a drug trafficker.

Internet Investigations -Federal agents often conduct internet investigations into the suspect’s life. They might review the suspect’s social media posts to see who he associates with.

Title Three Wiretaps– If federal agents develop probable cause to believe that a suspect is engaged in drug trafficking, they may apply for a federal wiretap. To obtain the wiretap, the federal agents must convince a federal judge that listening in on the suspect’s phone calls is likely to produce evidence that the suspect is, in fact, engaged in drug trafficking. If the wiretap is granted, the agents will listen in on all calls to determine whether they intercept drug dealing-related calls. If the agents obtain evidence that the suspect is involved in drug dealing, they may apply to the federal judge to expand the period of time that the wiretap may be used. Those engaged in drug trafficking often talk in code. The code is oftentimes very obvious and easy to break.

Marked Unit Stops– If federal agents learn that a drug deal is about to go down, they may have a marked unit pull over the suspected drug dealer or buyer. The federal agents will purposely use a marked unit to make it appear that they stumbled on the vehicle that was carrying drugs. The agents will do this to stop the drug deal from being completed while maintaining the secrecy of their ongoing federal investigation.

Undercover Agents– If federal agents believe that someone is engaged in drug trafficking, they may have a confidential informant introduce the suspected drug trafficker to an undercover agent acting as a drug dealer. The undercover agent will often try to learn the suspect’s source of supply. The undercover agent will also typically arrange to purchase numerous drugs from the suspect. If an undercover agent is involved, he will record all phone calls. Depending on security concerns, the undercover agent may or may not wear a wire.

Search Warrants- If the federal agents have probable cause to believe that drugs will be found at a certain location, they may apply for a federal search warrant authorizing them to search that location and to seize anything related to drug trafficking.

Obtaining Confessions– Federal agents will use a variety of techniques to try and secure a confession from those who are detained or arrested for drug trafficking. It is important to know that under federal law, the agents may make misleading and even false statements to suspects to secure a confession. Agents often promise that if the suspect confesses, the agents will tell the prosecutor, which will help the suspect get a lighter charge or sentence. This kind of statement is misleading. Federal agents have no authority to enter into any agreement that is binding on the federal government. Only a federal prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, can enter into an agreement that binds the federal government. If a person is detained or arrested, they are foolish to talk to federal agents, and it is a mistake to believe any promise the agents may make.

Federal Drug Trafficking Crimes

Federal Drug Crimes Lawyer Robert Fickman defends clients accused of all kinds of federal drug crimes. The two most common federal drug crimes he defends against are:

1. Manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance: and
2. Conspiracy to engage in a Federal drug offense.

Manufacturing, Distributing, or Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance

21 United States Code Section 841(a)(b)(1)(A)

Under 21 United States Code 841(a), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The basic punishment range for these drug offenses is determined by the amount and type of drug involved.

The statute sets out the punishment range. The punishment range means the minimum and maximum possible punishment for manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute different controlled substances. Determining a more precise sentence estimate is a more complicated process involving analyzing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were first enacted in 1987. Mr. Fickman has studied the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and their amendments since they were enacted in 1987. Mr. Fickman explains the Guidelines to all clients and gives all federal clients his best estimate of their potential sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Federal sentencing is very serious. There is no parole in the federal system, and those convicted must do most of their sentence before they are eligible for release. That is one reason that if one is charged with a drug crime in federal court, one must do their best to obtain the best possible lawyer they can afford. Robert Fickman has handled federal drug cases for almost four decades. He knows what is at stake, and he will fight for you.

Possible Federal Sentencing Range

Under 21 United States Code Section 841 (b)(1)(A), an accused person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years or more than life if they are convicted of manufacturing, distributing or possessing with intent to distribute any of the following drugs:

• 1 Kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin; or
• 5 Kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine; or
• 280 grams or more of a mixture or substance which contains cocaine base (like “crack”); or
• 100 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP); or
• 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); or
• 1000 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana; or
• 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.

These sentencing ranges are subject to increase if death or serious bodily injury results from using such substances. The potential sentencing range can also be enhanced if the accused has a prior conviction for a serious drug felony or a serious violent felony.

Under 21 United States Code Section 842 (b)(1)(B), an accused person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years or more than 40 years if they are convicted of manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute any of the following lesser amounts of drugs:

• 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin; or
• 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine; or
• 28 grams or more of a mixture or substance which contains cocaine base (like “crack”); or
• 10 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 1kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of of phencyclidine (PCP); or
• 1 gram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); or
• 100 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana; or
• 5 grams or more of methamphetamine.

Federal Drug Conspiracies

The Federal government uses conspiracy charges in almost every case that involves more than one person. The basic federal conspiracy law is in 18 United States Code Section 371. This Section states:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United States or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

21 U.S. Code Sec. 846 Drug Conspiracy

The drug conspiracy law is found at 21 U.S.C. § 846. It states, in pertinent part, that any person who attempts or conspires to commit any federal drug offense shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. For example, a person convicted of Conspiracy to Distribute 10 Kilograms of cocaine will face the same sentencing range as a person convicted of the Distribution of 10 Kilograms of cocaine.

What is a Federal Conspiracy?

Under Federal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to join together to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of criminal partnership in which each member becomes the agent of every other member.

What are the Elements of a Federal Drug Conspiracy?

Under Federal law, for a jury to find an accused person guilty of a Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, the jury must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. That two or more persons, directly or indirectly, reached an agreement to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance;
2. That the accused knew of the unlawful purpose of the agreement;
3. That the accused joined in the agreement willfully, that is, with the intent to further its unlawful purpose;
4. That the overall scope of the conspiracy involved an alleged amount of a listed controlled substance; and
5. That the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the scope of the conspiracy involved the alleged amount of the listed controlled substance.

 Federal Conspiracy Laws give the Federal Government Broad Power

Under federal law, one may become a conspiracy member without knowing all the details of the unlawful scheme or the other alleged conspirators’ identities. If a defendant understands the unlawful nature of a plan or scheme and knowingly and intentionally joins in that plan or scheme on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him or her for conspiracy even though the defendant had not participated before and even though the defendant played only a minor part.

The government need not prove that the alleged conspirators entered into any formal agreement nor that they directly stated all of the scheme’s details. Similarly, the government need not prove that all of the details of the scheme alleged in the indictment were actually agreed upon or carried out, nor must it prove that all of the persons alleged to have been members of the conspiracy were such or that the alleged conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful purpose,

Federal Drug Crimes Lawyer Robert Fickman has Successfully Defended people Charged with Federal Drug Crimes Using some of the following approaches

Federal Drug Crimes Lawyer Robert Fickman believes that preparation is the key to victory in any case. He thoroughly prepares for trial. He goes to trial, having already developed a defense theory and battle plan that aggressively attacks the federal government’s case.

Destroying the Credibility of Snitches and Cooperating Co-defendants

In prosecuting Federal Drug Trafficking cases, the government will often indict many alleged co-conspirators. It is not unusual for indicted co-defendants to enter into plea agreements with the government where they agree to cooperate. These co-defendants plead guilty and provide information and testimony to the government in the hope of getting a lower sentence. In almost every multi-defendant case, there will be at least one or more cooperating co-defendants or snitches.

Federal Drug Crime Lawyer Robert Fickman has developed his own technique for cross-examining co-operating co-defendants and snitches. Robert Fickman has taught his technique to defense lawyers all over the country. He relentlessly attacks the snitch’s credibility, showing that the snitch has lived a life of lies. He uses a timeline that he calls “The List of Lies.” During cross-examination, Mr. Fickman chronicles important events in the snitch’s life. He demonstrates that the snitch has lived a life of lies and is not worthy of belief. He shows the jury the snitch’s history of lies and demonstrates the snitch’s motive to lie to the jury during the trial.

Raising Reasonable Doubt about Agent’s Surveillance Testimony- The federal government will often use surveillance videos or still photos in their cases. Federal agents will identify the accused as being in the surveillance video or photos. These identifications by the federal agents must be attacked. Agents make mistaken identifications and the possibility that the identification is a mistake must be demonstrated to the jury.

Raising Reasonable Doubt about the Identification of the Voice of the Accused Being on Wiretap Calls– The federal government will often claim that the accused’s voice is on wiretap calls. The government does not always know this, and their claim may result from mistaken voice identification. Showing that the voice of the accused is not on any tape is vitally important. The government has made mistakes before in voice identification. Mr. Fickman fought one case where the government maintained that his client’s voice was on Title 3 wiretap recordings. Mr. Fickman investigated and challenged the identification of his client’s voice. A week before the trial, the government conceded that they were wrong and that the accused’s voice was not that of Mr. Fickman’s client. Mr. Fickman’s client was found not guilty.

Motions to Suppress Drugs Seized during a Search– Any time the government searches a home or vehicle, the results of that search may be subject to a motion to suppress. In a motion to suppress, it is alleged that there was no legal basis for the initial stop or search. Even if the government has a warrant for a search, the warrant may be defective, and the resulting search may be subject to a motion to suppress. In one case, where there was an unlawful search, Mr. Fickman obtained the suppression of hundreds of kilograms of cocaine found in a warehouse.

Motions to Suppress Out-of-Court Identifications of the Accused– Any time the government relies on evidence of prior out-of-court identifications of the accused, the prior identifications may be suppressed. If the procedure used by the federal agents in obtaining the identifications was unduly suggestive to make the resulting identifications unreliable, the identifications might be subject to attack.

Motions to Suppress Alleged Confessions– Federal agents almost always try to get the accused to confess to the offense under investigation. In some cases, federal agents will record statements. In other cases, they will obtain hand-written statements.

Sometimes, the agents will claim the accused made an oral confession to the agent, which was neither recorded nor written down. The admissibility of any confession may always be challenged. Agents will assert that the accused waived his privilege against self-incrimination before making any statement. For a waiver to be valid, it must be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. In one case, an agent testified that Robert Fickman’s client made an oral confession to the agent. On cross-examination, Mr. Fickman attacked and mocked the agent’s claim that his client confessed, and his client was acquitted.

Federal  Drug Crimes Lawyer Robert Fickman Will Fight for You

Federal Drug Crimes Lawyer Robert Fickman has defended his fellow Texans for 40+ years. He has never prosecuted any Texan or any person for that matter. He believes strongly in our fundamental Constitutional rights. As a defense attorney, he took a sworn oath to defend his clients zealously and support the Constitution of the United States and the State of Texas. Robert Fickman is proud to defend his clients and support the Constitution zealously.

Robert Fickman believes in the presumption of innocence. He believes that anyone accused of any crime in this country is entitled by law to be presumed innocent. While Robert Fickman believes in the presumption of innocence, he is not naïve; far from it.

After defending his fellow Texans for almost four decades, Robert Fickman knows that many do not believe in the presumption of innocence. Many believe anything law enforcement says. Many believe that if a person is accused of a crime, they must be guilty.

Robert Fickman fights to ensure his clients are afforded the full protection of the presumption of innocence. He fights to ensure that the burden of proof always remains on the Government. He fights to ensure that if the Government cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, his clients will be found not guilty. All drug trafficking charges are serious. Robert Fickman does not believe an allegation means anything. It is not evidence of any crime. It is simply the government’s assertion that someone committed a serious crime.

Experienced Federal Drug Crimes Lawyer

Robert Fickman has almost four decades of experience fighting the Federal Government. He has fought & cross-examined Homeland Security Agents, FBI Agents, DEA agents, IRS agents, Customs Agents, Secret Service Agents, Postal Inspectors, ATF agents, and Task Force Agents. He knows the enormous power that these agencies and their agents have. It is Robert Fickman’s job to protect you from these agencies’ abuse of their enormous power. Robert Fickman has defended Federal Drug Conspiracy trials that lasted for weeks. His longest Federal Drug trafficking trial involved ten co-defendants, and the trial lasted for nine weeks. In the end, Robert Fickman’s client was acquitted of all charges.

A SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY ROBERT FICKMAN’S CREDENTIALS

• Robert Fickman has been a criminal defense attorney in Houston for 40+ Years.
• Robert Fickman has handled over 300 Federal Cases.
• Robert Fickman has kept some clients from being charged in Federal Court.
• Robert Fickman has obtained the dismissal of some Federal Charges.
• Robert Fickman has gone to trial in Federal Court and obtained acquittals on all charges for some clients. In 2022, Robert Fickman went to trial in United States v. Rebolledo. Robert Fickman’s client was the ONLY client in the entire case to be acquitted on all charges.
• Robert Fickman has argued many cases before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Robert Fickman has had an AV Rating (the highest rating) with Martindale Hubbell for over 20 years.
• Robert Fickman has been named a “Texas Super Lawyer” since 2015.
• Robert Fickman is well-respected by his peers and has received numerous awards.
• Robert Fickman was the President of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA) from 2006-2007.
• Robert Fickman is a past Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (TCDLA) board member.
• Robert Fickman serves on the HCCLA and TCDLA Strike Forces, where he is called upon to come to the aid of other criminal defense lawyers.
• Robert Fickman is an outstanding public speaker. Robert Fickman was on the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers “Best of 2010 Speakers”,  “Best of 2014 Speakers ” and “Best of 2022 Speakers Disc.”
• Robert Fickman was named “Mr. Declaration of Independence.” in the Texas State Bar Journal for his volunteerism.