In 2010, Washington, D.C. ranked third on the list of cyber-crime hot spots out of 50 U.S. cities, outranked only by Boston and Seattle. White collar crime is quickly evolving from securities and mail fraud to computer and wire fraud. In this technologically charged era, most white collar offenses are facilitated through the use of interstate computers, and federal law carries particularly heavy penalties for these types of crimes.

The problem with these heavy penalties is that potential sentences coax defendants into entering plea bargains with the government, rather than taking a risk and exercising their constitutional right to a trial by jury with the help of a criminal defense lawyer. When facing 25 years in a federal penitentiary if unsuccessful at trial, defendants opt for the 3 to 5 year plea offer that is on the table instead. Federal prosecutors often "stack" charges, alleging numerous criminal violations in one indictment including computer and wire fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, or even stretch the gambit to press racketeering charges where it may not be warranted. This stacking technique results in exorbitantly high sentence possibilities and often leaves suspects with nothing but a Hobson's choice to determine their fate, forced to choose with no real options.

Some who are suspected of cyber-crime did not intend to commit a crime at all, but merely used their tech-savvy skills to access a particular network. All it takes is affecting 10 or more computers or more than $5,000 in system repairs for this act to become a felony, and ISP tracing methods make it easy for the feds to locate the person responsible.

Similarly, some executive white collar defendants are charged with crimes that they were unaware of. Most executives trust that their employees will discover and alert them of fiscal anomalies and avoid inappropriate transactions. While the employees may not uncover mix-ups, the federal authorities certainly will and computer networks make it easy to do so.

Mail fraud in the traditional sense rarely occurs anymore. Gone are the days of affixing a stamp to an envelope. Instead, people are using the internet to communicate and mail fraud is quickly being replaced with wire fraud. Where computers are involved in the commission of an offense, inflated federal penalties will accompany criminal charges.

Admittedly, uncountable crimes have occurred when computer hackers both intended to do harm and retrieved data for unscrupulous use. Most recently, the internet retail shoe giant Zappo's experienced a security breach, where a hacker accessed the database and retrieved private information about 24 million consumers. Even in this case, however, the authorities have not located the hacker. As a die-hard optimist, I imagine some brilliant college student testing out new skills and haphazardly accessing this information only to exit the network without saving or using any of the data. Unfortunately, in the eyes of federal law even this act would constitute a felony regardless of an absence of criminal intent, as Zappo's is spending huge amounts of money re-securing their system and addressing the backlash from consumers. In the eyes of the law, the intent to cause damage need not be present, only the intent to access information does.

Computers facilitate so many crimes that a majority of Americans have a legitimate fear of identity theft. In an effort to educate Americans on how to protect themselves, Google launched a nationwide campaign on how to keep internet activity and identity information secure on the web. With more than four billion computers connected to the web, it is no surprise that computer crimes of all shapes and sizes have arisen as a new white collar trend. Likewise, it is no surprise that the feds would institute weighty sentences and strict liability laws to deter such crimes from occurring.

This blog post was written by Rosie Escobar Brown, a law clerk at the law firm Price Benowitz LLP. Founded by DC criminal defense attorney David Benowitz, the firm handles criminal, personal injury, and immigration cases. We also have attorneys in Maryland and Virginia, so please contact our Falls Church criminal lawyers and Baltimore criminal lawyers for more information on those offices.

Continue reading "Computer Crimes Rising on List of White Collar Offenses" »

Withholding information favorable to the defendant and their criminal defense lawyer was seemingly a long-standing practice in one New Orleans prosecutor's office. The Supreme Court handed down a decision last week overturning a murder conviction because the prosecution never handed over prior statements of the government's one eyewitness.

Juan Smith was convicted of first-degree murder based on the eyewitness testimony of one single person. There was no other evidence at all connecting Smith to the crime. In an unethical attempt to secure the conviction, prosecutors held back prior statements made by this witness indicating that he could not see who committed the crime as he did not have a good view and there was poor lighting. This kind of information was very valuable to the defense for its potential to discredit the eyewitness, and the foundational case Brady v. Maryland requires that any favorable information be turned over by prosecutors.

Eyewitness testimony has been largely discredited in recent years amid studies showing that memories can be molded to believe just about anything. A once uncertain eyewitness can tentatively identify a suspect and, after affirmation by observing law enforcement that they "picked the right guy," can then become one-hundred percent certain. Another method of faulty identification can come from the tendency to choose the best option out of a certain selection. Even if the true suspect is not present, the witness will choose the one who most closely fits their memory's image.

This was not the first time the New Orleans prosecutors under former District Attorney Harry Connick Sr. had a decision overturned; a similar conviction was likewise overturned by the justices only a year prior.

Smith's case highlights many of the prevalent flaws with the American criminal justice system: (1) Prosecutorial misconduct DOES happen; (2) there is little to no disciplinary action or systematic checks available to remedy it; and (3) single eyewitness accounts, faulty and error-prone as they may be, are still being used to convict people of serious crimes when no other evidence exists. While the inaccuracy of the human memory is understood among legal professionals, prosecutors still persist in pressing charges and consuming state resources when not a single shred of other evidence ties a person to a crime. This is how innocent people end up in prison. Unfortunately, it occurs more often than we think.

For now, the Supreme-9 have slapped the hands of these prosecutors once again, and perhaps set the bar for other prosecutors around the nation. Their wise message: Prosecute in good faith, or we'll utter the phrase that prosecutors loathe..."REVERSED."

Rosana Escobar Brown wrote this blog post. She is a law clerk at Price Benowitz LLP and in her final year of law school. Price Benowitz LLP is a DC law firm founded by criminal defense lawyer David Benowitz. We also have attorneys in Maryland and Virginia, so please visit our Fredericksburg County criminal lawyer or our Anne Arundel criminal lawyer sites for more information on those offices.

Continue reading "Prosecutorial Misconduct Slammed by the Supreme Court" »