You Don’t Want to Be the Target of a Federal Criminal Investigation

The bottom line is, if you are charged with a federal crime, you are probably going to go to prison. If you have been charged with a federal crime your first thought should not be whether you are going to go to trial to prove your innocence. And if you are guilty you certainly should not risk going to trial. Your first thought should be how to keep your prison sentence to the absolute minimum. Leave the question of guilt or innocence to the academics. Make sure your sentence is short enough so you can pick up the pieces when you are released.

That’s from an American Chronicle piece by Geoff Mousseau. Frankly, that’s long been my impression of how federal prosecution works.

Harvard celebrity law professor Alan Dershowitz kind of agrees with this assessment as well:

That is why white collar criminal lawyers are busy preparing their clients for investigations, subpoenas and flipping witnesses. The race to the courthouse has already begun, with lawyers trying to be the first to offer up their clients as witnesses against former friends and colleagues, instead of themselves becoming defendants. The race, however, is not always to the swiftest but rather to the lowest on the totem pole–the underling who can provide evidence or testimony against the higher ups. The first rule of criminality in the U.S. is “always commit crimes with people more important than you are, so that you can turn them in rather than having them turn you in!”

So, a word to the formerly wise Wall Street whiz kids. Watch out for your friends. Pick your lawyers wisely. Make sure they are representing you and you alone–not your company. And hope and pray that you are not targeted as one of the scapegoats for the mortgage meltdown.

Scott Greenfield, who does federal defense, disagrees, at least as far as Dersh’s tactical advice:

Don’t buy into the argument that the government can pluck anybody on the face of the earth and convict them under mail fraud.  It’s not quite that bad, and it’s definitely not a lost cause.  The law is ridiculously broad and vague, but that’s where having a good lawyer comes in.

I sure hope Greenfield is right. But as a matter of public policy, I think we should assume the situation identified by Mousseau is (a) real, and (b) unjust.

(Hat tip: Lammers)