Criminal Investigations & Grand Jury Proceedings

At Glozman Law we have substantial experience in all of the following areas relating to criminal investigations and grand jury proceedings:

Procedural Issues in Criminal Investigations

Upon learning that a criminal investigation is underway, the targeted individual should first discover their position on the investigation spectrum. Typically, one is either a target, a subject, or a witness in the investigation. Depending on the role and risk of exposure that ensues, an individualized strategy should be developed to ensure proper protection.

Early intervention is key when navigating a criminal investigation. Glozman Law works to ensure our clients are protected during this difficult time — conducting investigations and unveiling what evidence and theory is held by the government. We have successfully convinced prosecutors to reduce charges against our clients and, in other cases, ensured no charges were brought — even after homes or offices were searched by law enforcement agencies.

Since multiple federal agencies typically investigate federal crimes, communication between the agencies is often lacking due to conflicting agendas and too many components. As a result, procedural issues often plague these investigations and taint their results — paving the way for strategization that produces optimal results for those targeted.

Search Warrants

Most criminal prosecutions hinge on physical evidence and — since the burden of proof is so high in these cases — authorities must amass as much of it as possible. To accomplish this, investigators often take shortcuts, such as utilizing paid informants.

While insiders may provide invaluable information in criminal investigations — especially in whistleblowing matters — the reliability of this information matters. To determine an informant’s reliability, courts often look at a number of factors, including:

• Any payment (money or leniency) received by the informant
• Any corroborating proof
• The track record of the informant
• The timing of the information provided

Search warrants are not self-authenticating, meaning that prosecutors cannot argue that a warrant was based on probable cause simply because it led to a discovery of evidence. Since investigators tend to zero in on suspects early in the process, they often try to collect proof that implicates the targeted suspect rather than following where the evidence leads. The further investigators reach, the more problematic the standard of proof — probable cause — becomes.

Additionally, since many federal criminal investigations also involve forfeiture proceedings, if investigators believe any property — including a bank account — is connected to criminal activity, they may legally seize it in many cases. However, courts have ruled that these proceedings cannot be so burdensome that they prevent defendants from hiring a lawyer.

Miranda Warnings

In TV shows and movies, authorities usually administer Miranda rights when defendants are handcuffed. In the real world, if officers wait that long, they are usually too late. Legally, authorities must administer Miranda rights prior to custodial interrogation.

Since “custody” typically commences when the suspect does not feel free to leave, it usually occurs when authorities make their initial approach. Issues regarding this often arise during the late stages of an investigation, when representatives of different agencies handle various aspects of the defendant’s interrogation, each assuming the other administered Miranda rights.

Defendants have the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment — but they must affirmatively assert it. Under current law, simply refusing to answer questions could be construed as a waiver. Firmly asserting rights also applies to the right to counsel, since authorities almost never facilitate attorney-client contact.

Grand Jury Proceedings

Trial juries and grand juries are almost nothing alike. While trial juries hear both sides of the story, grand juries hear only from prosecutors — defense lawyers cannot challenge evidence, make legal arguments, or even be in the same room.

For those served with either a federal or a state grand jury subpoena, a competent lawyer can either make it unnecessary to comply with the subpoena, obtain immunity from prosecution, or limit the scope of questioning. These matters are typically addressed during pre-grand jury negotiation sessions with prosecutors.

As for interrogation limits, while a lawyer cannot attend grand jury proceedings, they are typically allowed to examine the transcript of the proceedings and follow with any warranted enforcement or penal action.

Any witnesses appearing at the proceedings must appear and comply with the subpoena and produce any documents requested. They generally aren’t required to answer questions, may request a break as often as necessary, and confer with counsel.