FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE
Deportation Defense * Immigration Court Representation * Bond Hearings * Appeals
Federal Criminal Defense Attorney | New York & Connecticut
When the federal government targets you, it brings resources no individual defendant can match alone. Federal prosecutors — Assistant United States Attorneys — are career specialists who dedicate their professional lives to building and winning cases in the same courtrooms where your freedom will be decided. Behind them stand the full investigative power of the FBI, the DEA, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, the Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations, and dozens of other federal agencies. Federal cases frequently involve years of pre-indictment investigation before a single charge is filed. By the time you are arrested or served with an indictment, the government has often already built what it believes is an airtight case. The federal conviction rate consistently exceeds 90% — not because the government is always right, but because defendants who face the federal system without elite-level legal representation rarely survive it. The consequences of a federal conviction are categorical and unforgiving. There is no parole in the federal system. Mandatory minimum sentences are imposed by statute, not by a judge's discretion — and they can run for decades. Federal Sentencing Guidelines create ranges that judges are required to calculate and seriously consider. A federal criminal conviction carries collateral consequences that follow a person for a lifetime: loss of civil rights, deportation for non-citizens, loss of professional licenses, and permanent reputational damage. Pre-indictment intervention and aggressive defense strategy are not luxuries — they are necessities. Smith & Company exists to provide both.
Federal Court Is Different From State Court
Federal prosecutors are Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) who handle narrow categories of cases with singular focus. An AUSA in the SDNY's Narcotics Unit has prosecuted dozens of drug trafficking cases. An AUSA in the Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit has handled some of the most sophisticated white-collar prosecutions in American history. These are not generalist attorneys — they are specialists backed by the investigative resources of federal law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the DEA, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, and Homeland Security Investigations. Facing this level of expertise requires defense counsel with equivalent depth of experience in federal court practice. Before a federal charge is filed, a grand jury of 23 citizens convenes in secret to determine whether probable cause exists to indict. Prosecutors present only their evidence — there is no defense, no cross-examination, no judge moderating the presentation. Grand jury targets, subjects, and witnesses have different rights and exposure levels, and navigating this phase correctly is critical. A "target" is someone the grand jury is investigating with a view toward indictment. A "subject" is someone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation. A "witness" simply has relevant information — but that status can change quickly. Understanding where your client stands in a grand jury investigation, and acting swiftly to protect their rights, is work that must begin immediately. Mandatory minimum sentences under federal statutes fundamentally change the nature of criminal defense. Unlike state court, where a judge often has wide discretion to tailor a sentence to the individual, federal mandatory minimums strip that discretion away. A conviction for certain drug trafficking offenses triggers a mandatory minimum of 5, 10, or even 20 years in federal prison — regardless of the defendant's background, family circumstances, or the judge's personal view of what is fair. The existence of these mandatory minimums changes the strategic calculus of every federal case — from the decision of whether to fight at trial versus negotiate a plea, to whether to seek "safety valve" relief or cooperation credit. Every decision must be made with full knowledge of the mandatory minimum exposure. The United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) govern federal sentencing even when mandatory minimums do not apply. The Guidelines calculate a recommended sentencing range based on two variables: the offense level (determined by the nature of the crime and specific offense characteristics, such as drug quantity, loss amount, or use of a weapon) and the criminal history category (I through VI, determined by prior convictions). While the Supreme Court's Booker decision made the Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, they remain enormously influential — judges must calculate the range, explain any departure from it, and a sentence within the range is presumptively reasonable on appeal. Fighting to reduce the offense level through objections to the Presentence Report, pursuing downward departures, and arguing for a below-guidelines variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) are all critical components of federal defense strategy.
SERVING NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUSSETTS
CRIMINAL APPEALS & POST-CONVICTION RELIEF | FEDERAL, NEW YORK & CONNECTICUT
A conviction is serious — but it is not always final. The American legal system recognizes that courts make errors, that prosecutors sometimes withhold evidence they are obligated to disclose, that trial attorneys sometimes fall short of the standard the Constitution demands, and that the law itself can change in ways that benefit convicted defendants. Multiple avenues exist — through direct appeal, through collateral attack, and through statutory sentence reduction mechanisms — to challenge a wrongful conviction, an excessive sentence, or a constitutional violation that was never properly addressed. At Smith & Company, we pursue every available avenue, with the same urgency and the same rigor we bring to trial, to give our clients a second chance at justice. Post-conviction work is different from trial work — it demands a different kind of analysis, a different kind of writing, and a different understanding of procedural law. But the stakes are exactly the same: years of a person's life, the freedom of someone who may have been wronged by the system, the opportunity to correct an injustice that persists as long as it goes unchallenged. Smith & Company takes post-conviction cases seriously — investing the research, the writing, and the strategic thinking they demand — because our clients deserve nothing less, regardless of where they are in the process.
DIRECT APPEALS
A direct appeal is the first post-conviction challenge — and it must be filed immediately. In federal court, the notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment. In New York and Connecticut state courts, the deadline is 30 days. Missing these deadlines is catastrophic: a late notice of appeal is almost universally rejected, and the right to direct appeal is lost. Smith & Company files the notice of appeal immediately upon retention in every direct appeal case, then conducts a comprehensive review of the trial record — transcripts, motions, exhibits, jury instructions, and the full evidentiary proceedings — to identify every legal error that supports an argument for reversal or remand. On direct appeal, we challenge legal errors made during trial: improper jury instructions that misstated the law; wrongful admission of evidence that should have been excluded, or wrongful exclusion of evidence the defense needed; prosecutorial misconduct — improper vouching, inflammatory argument, Brady violations discovered post-trial; and ineffective assistance of trial counsel, where the attorney's performance fell below the constitutional standard and there is a reasonable probability that effective representation would have changed the outcome. Each argument is supported by record citations, controlling legal authority, and the kind of careful, persuasive legal writing that appellate courts expect and respond to. Federal appellate courts: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seated in New York City, covers appeals from the SDNY, EDNY, and D. Conn. Smith & Company is admitted to the Second Circuit and has experience with its procedures, its standards of review, and the legal issues that arise most frequently in federal criminal appeals from the districts where we practice. New York: Appeals from New York trial courts proceed first to the Appellate Division (four departments, organized by region) and then — on questions of law — to the New York Court of Appeals. Connecticut: Appeals proceed to the Connecticut Appellate Court and, for significant legal questions, to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
28 U.S.C. § 2255 — MOTION TO VACATE FEDERAL CONVICTION
A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the primary federal post-conviction remedy for a person in federal custody seeking to challenge their conviction or sentence on constitutional or statutory grounds that were not, or could not have been, raised on direct appeal. The most common grounds for § 2255 relief are: ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington — proving both that counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient and that there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different with effective representation; newly discovered evidence that, had it been available at trial, would probably have resulted in acquittal; prosecutorial misconduct, including Brady violations (suppression of material exculpatory evidence) not discovered until after trial; and changes in governing law that render the conviction or sentence unlawful under currently applicable legal standards. A § 2255 motion is subject to a one-year statute of limitations that runs, in most cases, from the date the conviction became final on direct review. This limitations period has limited exceptions — for newly discovered facts and for new rules of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court — but these exceptions are narrow and heavily litigated. Missing the limitations period is almost always fatal to the § 2255 claim. If you believe you have a post-conviction claim in federal court, contact Smith & Company immediately — because every day that passes without action is a day that narrows your options.
A § 2255 motion is not a simple filing. It requires detailed factual development, including affidavits and documentary evidence supporting every factual claim; rigorous legal research identifying the governing standards for each asserted ground; and persuasive legal writing capable of surviving the heightened procedural scrutiny that § 2255 courts apply. A poorly presented § 2255 motion can not only fail on its own merits — it can waive claims that would otherwise be available and foreclose future avenues for relief. Smith & Company approaches § 2255 practice with the same thoroughness we apply to every other phase of criminal defense.
FEDERAL SENTENCE REDUCTION
RULE 35(B) — SUBSTANTIAL POST-SENTENCING COOPERATION
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), the government may file a motion to reduce a defendant's sentence based on substantial assistance provided after sentencing — such as testimony in another trial, ongoing cooperation in a continuing investigation, or information that produces results only after the original sentence is imposed. Unlike the § 5K1.1 motion filed before sentencing, a Rule 35(b) motion can be filed at any time within one year of sentencing (or later in certain circumstances), and it allows a court to reduce an otherwise final sentence to reflect post-sentencing cooperation. Smith & Company works with clients who are serving federal sentences to identify cooperation opportunities, engage with the government, and advocate for the maximum possible sentence reduction under Rule 35(b).
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE (18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A))
The First Step Act of 2018 dramatically expanded access to compassionate release by permitting defendants — not just the Bureau of Prisons — to file motions for sentence reduction based on "extraordinary and compelling reasons." Courts have found such reasons in a wide range of circumstances: terminal illness, debilitating medical conditions, the advanced age of a defendant who has served a substantial portion of their sentence, the death or incapacitation of a family member who was the sole caregiver for minor children, and the demonstrated rehabilitation of a defendant who presents no danger to the community. Smith & Company evaluates compassionate release eligibility for every client who contacts us with a potential claim and files detailed, well-supported motions with the sentencing court.
FIRST STEP ACT RETROACTIVE RELIEF
The First Step Act of 2018 made retroactive the Fair Sentencing Act's reduction of the crack-to-powder cocaine sentencing disparity — allowing defendants who were sentenced under the pre-2010 guidelines, when crack cocaine offenses were punished at 100:1 compared to powder cocaine, to seek a reduction to the sentence they would have received under current law. Many federal defendants who were sentenced years ago may be eligible for significant reductions under this provision and have not sought relief. Smith & Company evaluates First Step Act retroactivity claims and files sentence reduction motions for qualifying defendants.
AMENDMENT 821 — RETROACTIVE CRIMINAL HISTORY REDUCTION
The United States Sentencing Commission's Amendment 821, made retroactive as of November 1, 2023, made two significant changes to the criminal history guidelines: it eliminated "status points" (the two additional criminal history points added for being under a criminal justice sentence at the time of the offense) for most defendants with criminal history scores of 7 or more, and it created a new reduction for "zero-point offenders" — defendants with no prior criminal history points who meet certain offense criteria. These changes may reduce the criminal history category — and therefore the guidelines range — for qualifying defendants who are currently serving federal sentences. Smith & Company evaluates Amendment 821 eligibility and files reduction motions for all qualifying clients.
​POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IN NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT STATE COURTS
In New York, defendants who have been convicted may seek post-conviction relief through a motion to vacate judgment under CPL § 440.10. The grounds for a § 440 motion include: the court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense; the judgment was procured by duress, fraud, or misrepresentation; material evidence admitted at trial was false and the prosecutor knew it was false; material evidence was improperly obtained in violation of the defendant's rights; newly discovered evidence, not available at trial, that would have changed the outcome; the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel; and the conviction was obtained in violation of Brady v. Maryland (suppression of material exculpatory evidence by the prosecution). Connecticut provides equivalent relief through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under CGS § 52-466, which allows a confined person to challenge the lawfulness of their detention on grounds including ineffective assistance, newly discovered evidence, Brady violations, and actual innocence. Post-conviction claims in state court are subject to preservation and procedural default rules that require careful navigation. Many claims that were not properly raised at trial or on direct appeal may be procedurally defaulted — unavailable in post-conviction proceedings — unless a specific exception applies. Smith & Company analyzes the procedural posture of every state post-conviction case at the outset to identify which claims remain viable, how to present them, and what additional factual development (through investigation, witness interviews, or expert consultation) is required to make the strongest possible record for relief.
A conviction is not always the end. If you believe you were wrongfully convicted or over-sentenced, call Smith & Company now. We evaluate post-conviction options free of charge.