Get Directions
Get Directions
Free Case Evaluations
Let’s consider a criminal trial scenario to illustrate how Rule 801, specifically the co-conspirator exception under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), might come into play. Scenario: Drug Trafficking Conspiracy Trial Defendants: Alice and Bob are on trial for allegedly conspiring to distribute illegal drugs. Prosecution’s Strategy: The prosecution wants to prove that Alice and Bob were working together in a drug trafficking conspiracy.
Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence specifically deals with the definition of hearsay in the U.S. legal system. Hearsay is a complex topic, and Rule 801 breaks down what constitutes hearsay and what does not. Here is a detailed look at the provisions within Rule 801: Rule 801: Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay (a)
Co-conspirator statements under Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, governs hearsay and its exceptions in the U.S. legal system. Hearsay is considered a statement made outside of court that is offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Typically, hearsay is not admissible in court, but there are exceptions. One such exception is the admissibility
I am here today to surrender to an indictment that should never have been brought. It represents a crossing of the Rubicon for our country, implicating the fundamental First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. As troubling, it targets attorneys for their zealous advocacy on behalf of their clients, something attorneys are ethically bound to provide
The indictment in Georgia vs. Donald Trump and 18 others sets out activity that is political, but not criminal. It goes hand-in-glove with the recent effort to criminalize lawful political speech and legal advice, in stark violation of constitutional rights to Freedom of Speech, Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, and the Right to Counsel. Lawyers everywhere
Attorney Charles Burnham discusses his representation of Dr. John Eastman in the special counsel investigation and the indictment of former President Trump.
Almost fifteen years ago, John Eastman defense counsel Harvey Silverglate predicted in the book Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent that the ever expanding federal criminal code was liable to be misused for improper political purposes. This prediction finds its fulfillment in the current administration’s use of heretofore obscure federal statutes to indict its leading political opponent
Eugene Gorokhov is a partner Burnham & Gorokhov PLLC and is familiar with federal plea deals. His practice centers on federal criminal defense with a special focus on white collar matters. Eugene, good morning and welcome to morning rush. So how common is it that we see a plea deal like this, I mean, completely fall apart for
Facing a federal criminal charge is an intimidating prospect, and the pivotal moment in such cases often is the issuance of a federal indictment. This article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of federal indictments, shedding light on the process leading up to an indictment and the implications it holds for individuals involved in federal criminal defense cases. What is
When it comes to fraud charges, the government must demonstrate that the accused misrepresented or lied with the intention of deceiving someone else. Although the typical fraud case will involve financial or legal harm to the victim, harm is not an element of fraud offenses. For example, attempts and conspiracies to commit fraud are violations of federal law, even if
Free Case Evaluations
Get Directions
Get Directions