What Makes Federal Criminal Defense Different

Federal criminal cases differ from Michigan state prosecutions in almost every material respect. Federal investigations are typically conducted by specialized agencies — the FBI, DEA, ATF, IRS Criminal Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, or the Secret Service — that bring sophisticated investigative capabilities and virtually unlimited resources to bear over the course of months or years before charges are filed. By the time a federal grand jury returns an indictment, the government has usually assembled wiretap recordings, cooperating witness testimony, financial records, surveillance footage, and forensic evidence sufficient to secure a conviction. This investigative disparity means that federal defense must begin as early as possible — ideally at the first indication of federal interest, before any indictment is returned.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure govern all aspects of the federal criminal process, from initial appearance through sentencing. The federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 USC § 3161, imposes tight deadlines on the government and the defense, requiring trial to commence within seventy days of indictment or initial appearance (whichever is later), with specific exclusions for pretrial motions and other delays. Federal discovery is governed by Rule 16 and the government's constitutional obligations under Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 (1972), and the Jencks Act, 18 USC § 3500. Federal prosecutors have significant disclosure obligations that exceed those of state prosecutors in Michigan, and vigorous enforcement of these obligations through pretrial motions is a fundamental component of federal defense strategy.

Federal pretrial motions practice includes motions to suppress evidence obtained through unlawful searches or seizures under the Fourth Amendment, motions to suppress statements obtained in violation of Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), motions to dismiss the indictment for constitutional violations or insufficient evidence, and motions in limine to exclude prejudicial evidence at trial. Federal district court judges handle these motions with a level of procedural formality and analytical rigor that exceeds what is typical in state court. Briefing schedules are strict, evidentiary hearings are conducted under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and written opinions are often issued — creating a robust record for appeal. Attorney Maze approaches federal pretrial practice with the thoroughness it demands, filing comprehensive motions that preserve every available issue for appellate review.

Federal sentencing is its own discipline within federal criminal practice. The United States Sentencing Guidelines, which organize sentences around an offense level and criminal history grid, require detailed calculation that accounts for drug quantity, role in the offense, obstruction of justice, acceptance of responsibility, and dozens of specific offense characteristics. A one-level difference in the offense level can mean months or years of additional imprisonment. Attorney Maze reviews every aspect of the Presentence Investigation Report submitted by the U.S. Probation Office, objects to any factual or legal errors, and prepares comprehensive sentencing memoranda that present mitigating evidence and legal arguments in support of the lowest appropriate sentence under both the Guidelines and the factors of 18 USC § 3553(a).