The stakes in federal criminal cases are extraordinarily high, often involving severe penalties and long-term prison sentences. Because federal agencies like the FBI and DEA have vast resources at their disposal, a skilled, strategic defense is crucial for anyone facing federal charges. One of the most common challenges for defendants in federal prosecutions is overcoming the evidence prosecutors obtain from wiretaps and witnesses.
At Stechschulte Nell, Attorneys at Law in Tampa, we concentrate on every client’s case with the goal of identifying and exposing the weakness in the prosecutor’s evidence. Often, that means challenging the legality of wiretaps and the credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses.
The Role of Wiretaps in Federal Investigations
Let’s take a look at how wiretaps are commonly used in federal investigations and the role they play:
Wiretaps are governed by federal statutes like Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. These laws provide stringent conditions that must be met before law enforcement agencies can get judicial authorization to wiretap or intercept private communication of individuals. Not only must government agents present reliable evidence that constitutes probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed, but they must also show that other means of investigation have been unsuccessful or would be fruitless.
How They’re Used
Wiretaps are frequently employed in federal cases involving drug trafficking, organized crime, and national security threats. They are also increasingly obtained for use in white-collar cases involving fraud. Intercepted conversations that get recorded can provide direct evidence or lead investigators to other forms of incriminating evidence.
Because federal authorities must comply with strict procedures and evidentiary criteria to receive judicial approval, a skilled federal defense lawyer knows that close examination of the government’s compliance with the rules could reveal that they took shortcuts, made errors, or even misled the judge to obtain permission to begin the wiretap surveillance.
One effective defense is to question the legality of the wiretap. Did the affidavit submitted to the court genuinely allege enough reliable evidence to constitute probable cause? Did the authorizing judge adequately scrutinize the request?
If the government agents exaggerated the evidence or intentionally misled the judge to obtain the wiretap approval, defense counsel can attack the warrant. If the affidavit contains such misleading alleged facts, the court will determine if there is still probable cause in the remaining facts once the falsehoods are deleted. If the remaining facts do not meet the standard, the warrant will be invalidated and all the evidence gathered through its use can be suppressed.
Chain of Custody and Technicalities
Even if the wiretap was authorized legally, how the recorded conversations were stored, transferred, and analyzed can also be challenged. While chain of custody arguments are always appropriate in tracing how evidence was handled, wiretap recordings are especially sensitive and must be sealed, stored, and transferred only in a very specific manner.
This intense focus on the chain of custody is even more important as technology advances in ways that make manipulating or altering such evidence easier.
The Importance of Witnesses in Federal Cases
Witness testimony has long been viewed by judges and juries as the most persuasive and reliable. However, scientific studies have discovered that a witness’s observations and memories are often subject to distortion and are far less reliable than they were thought to be.
- Eyewitnesses: These witnesses testify based on firsthand experience. Their reliability can be challenged based on their vantage point, emotional state, or personal biases. When eyewitness testimony involves identifying the individual that they saw committing a crime, witnesses are often honestly mistaken. The events may have happened too quickly, angles of view can limit observations, and people tend to remember the events as they first reported them, even if the actual events occurred differently.
- Expert Witnesses: Experts are used to interpret technical evidence or provide a professional opinion. Their credentials, methods, and conclusions can be scrutinized for reliability. However, experts who testify to one interpretation of evidence are often contradicted by other experts who have different interpretations. The fact that someone is an expert does not entitle them to declare the truth.
- Informant Witnesses: These are often individuals involved in the crime who have opted to cooperate with the prosecution. Their credibility can be attacked, given that they may have incentives to lie or exaggerate.
Many informants or cooperating witnesses are testifying as part of a plea agreement to avoid or reduce punishment for their own criminal conduct. Some have prior criminal convictions that skilled defense lawyers can use to challenge the witness’s credibility. If the defense can show that the witness will face harsher punishment if they don’t support the prosecution’s theory of the case, the jury will often doubt their truth-telling incentive.
- Cross-Examination: A skilled defense attorney will use cross-examination to highlight significant inconsistencies in witness testimony, especially by confronting them with their own previous statements and actions. An artful cross-examination executed by an experienced criminal defense lawyer can seem like a mechanic dismantling an engine, one piece at a time. The skill, organization, and courtroom techniques developed over years of practice cannot be substituted.
- Alternate Narratives: Introducing other witnesses to provide different perspectives will dilute the impact of the prosecution’s witnesses. Building an effective defense requires great preparation, and planning to counter each of the prosecutor’s key allegations. Remember, the defense does not need to prove innocence. If the defense successfully calls the prosecutor’s evidence into real doubt, juries will often acquit.
Balancing Wiretaps and Witnesses
Not all evidence collected is necessarily admissible in court. The best defense lawyers carefully assess the relevance and admissibility of wiretap recordings and witness testimonies.
Both wiretaps and witnesses must meet constitutionally acceptable criteria. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and this extends to wiretap authorizations. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant’s right to confront their accusers, especially relevant when dealing with damaging witness testimony.
Just because a federal prosecutor has recorded wiretap evidence does not mean the accused has no defense or is bound to be convicted. The work of skilled and experienced federal criminal defense lawyers includes fighting every element of the government’s case.
Empower Your Defense with Tampa’s Best Federal Criminal Defense Team
In the complex world of federal criminal cases, your future hinges on the right defense strategies. At Stechschulte Nell, Attorneys at Law in Tampa, we’re dedicated to dismantling the prosecution’s case, whether it’s challenging wiretap legality or questioning witness credibility. Your freedom is worth fighting for, and our experienced federal defense lawyers have the expertise needed to protect your rights.
Remember, not all evidence is admissible, and the Constitution safeguards your rights. When facing federal charges, you deserve the best defense. Contact us at 813-280-1244 and let us build a formidable defense strategy tailored to your case. Don’t leave your future to chance – choose Tampa’s Federal Criminal Defense Lawyers at Stechschulte Nell.