https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1074747560865267714

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4157623&forum_id=2#37421656)

And Rudy use to be a US Attorney, literally used that to become mayor. Now he seems like a solo SHITLOYLER from Nebraska or something.

Fucking idiots

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4157623&forum_id=2#37421776)

Everyone who does any federal criminal defense work knows this: you'll bitch up a storm if they set your guy up for a queen-for-a-day talk and then *only* ask shit that they already know, but even then you can't do shit about it; and every interview does and should contain some "is this guy lying" litmus questions, and -- shockingly! -- when the interviewee lies, the feds know immediately, and thus a disproportionate # of those lies get prosecuted.

Turning to dersh's only colorable defense -- which is the "he was law professoring about what the law *should* be" argument -- it's very weird (shitty pedagogy at best) to not mention that this question has been resolved more definitively than most questions about ambiguous elements of federal crimes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4157623&forum_id=2#37423285)

It's one thing to test your witness' credibility in a queen for a day session. It's another thing to prosecute the person who lied during that session, especially when you knew it was a lie the moment it came out of their mouth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4157623&forum_id=2#37423408)

More than anything else, Title 18 of the U.S. Code is a blank check from Congress to prosecutors to put anyone they want in prison. The big reaction to the Warren Court's constitutional procedural activism was to circumvent it with substance, e.g., 'oh you have to prove every element of the offense BRD? even this one that was causing us to lose 4.2% of the time? well fuck that then, we're just gonna take that element out entirely." The few elements left in modern statutes are drafted so broadly that virtually any case can get to trial -- and there's no summary-judgment like procedure in criminal cases, so unless the feds go out of their way to draft an indictment that doesn't state the elements of the offense (oh and there's no twombly/iqbal, either! they just repeat the fucking statute and tack on the date and District), your only chance to strike a substantively inappropriate charge is at your jury trial.

---

Anyway, you're obviously right. I've always found it funny that I've never, ever seen or even heard of a prosecution for perjury in a private civil proceeding (i.e., where the government (usually the IRS) was not a party to the case). And doing that every now and then in the occasional egregious case would actually create positive incentives. But lie to the FBI and they'll use every weapon at their disposal (obstruction, false statements, false declarations, perjury, etc.) to fuck you. (I should mention that, to the extent the agency is the one pushing the prosecution, this is a particularly FBI-specific gayness. I've had DEA/HSI/ATF cases where I thought for sure they were going to tack on charges and they didn't.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4157623&forum_id=2#37423584)

you get riiillll good at dat sentencing guidelines argument though OFS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4157623&forum_id=2#37428282)

The big problem for *good* lawyers is that fed sentencing is so harsh that the AUSA can very often give you an *enormous* discount for pleading guilty, such that the def is left with a discount that's too good to turn down while the gov't is left with you still serving an ungodly sum that's really more than you deserve anyway -- think of a drug-trafficking case where the role is low (dealer, not mule, but low-level dealer) and the drug quantity is high, and a client with literally no criminal history might be facing a GL range of 19.5 to 28 years, so the government offers you a flat 9.

I'd say that, in my jurisdiction (which is a sort of hippie-dippy state within a conservative federal circuit, kind of like the opposite of Idaho/Montana), *most* drug-related defendants -- yes, most, of the entire range of seriousness of drug crimes -- who are unlucky enough to go federal end up with more real prison time than the average defendant convicted of homicide (across all degrees) in the state system. (Bear in mind that federal 'good time' credit is limited to 15% max, ever. Most state inmates serve only 50% of the number printed on the face of the J&C).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4157623&forum_id=2#37428486)

what does this mean?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4157623&forum_id=2#37427014)

Bear in mind that if you plead the guy, you don't usually find out when the gov't knew whatever it knew. Sometimes it's just obvious, e.g., he'll proffer and then 3 days later they'll supersede and add a 1001 count.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4157623&forum_id=2#37428600)

Not unreasonable to say that the government shouldn't be able to enforce crimes for which their is no harm.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4157623&forum_id=2#37425302)