Free Case Evaluation

800-805-6167

or, Text David Directly At:

424-888-3631

Recent News

Contact

Address:
3415 South Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90034
Email:
fedcrimlaw@hotmail.com
Facsimile:
(310) 772-8404
Office:
(310) 772-8400
SMS:
(424) 888-3631
Pager:
(800) 805-6167
Texas Number:
(713) 962-2749
Cell Phones:
(310) 766-3491
(310) 766-1810
(713) 471-5196
Federal Cases List

Case Results

  • P. v. N.C.: The defendant faced one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder after a shooting took place at a party. The prosecution engaged in a multitude of dirty tricks in an effort to obtain his conviction. The jury found him not guilty of all three counts.
  • U.S. v. R.E.:  The defendant, a commercial trucker, was arrested after Arizona state troopers found four kilos of cocaine, two kilos of heroin, and $1.6 million in cash in the trailer of his truck.  Attorney Dudley negotiated a plea agreement that called for a five-year mandatory minimum of five years, not the standard statutory ten-year mandatory minimum.  Ultimately, as the defendant was safety-valve eligible, Attorney Dudley persuaded the sentencing court to effect a substantial downward variance, resulting in an ultimate sentence of 37 months.
  • U,S. v. $20,000:  Illinois state troopers seized $20,000 in cash from the claimant, an undocumented immigrant, who was traveling from California to Illinois.  Attorney Dudley was able to secure the return of all $20,000 to his client.
  • U.S. v. $214, 225:  Local police officers seized $214,225 from the claimant as he was driving through Hawthorne, California.  Although the claimant was unable to provide any documentation whatsoever for the source of those funds, Attorney Dudley was able to negotiate the return of 50% of the seized funds.
  • U.S. v. $308,310:  Executing a search warrant on the claimant’s home, police officers seized $308,310 from his garage.  Asserting that the warrant was not supported by probable cause, Attorney Dudley was able to secure the return of all monies to his client.
  • P. v. M.R.: The trial court attempted to inhibit the defendant’s right to appeal from a motion to set aside his guilty plea due to the violation of his state statutory and federal constitutional rights by refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause. The court of appeals summarily affirmed the trial court’s refusal.  Attorney Dudley was able to convince the California Supreme Court unanimously to order the lower courts to issue the requisite certificate and allow the appeal to move forward—a rare procedural achievement in appellate practice.
  • U.S. v. D.A.:  The defendant pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to distribute large quantities of various prescription medications to Washington and Alaska.  Her advisory sentencing guideline range was almost ten years.  Attorney Dudley, however, convinced the district court to impose a probationary sentence with no jail time, only house arrest with electronic monitoring, by demonstrating that his client had grown up in a severely abusive family situation and was subsequently manipulated by her co-defendant boyfriend who orchestrated the conspiracy.
  • U.S. v. $214,225:  The claimant was intercepted by DEA agents at the San Francisco International Airport in possession of over $200,000 in cash.  There was evidence that the seizure was unlawful but the claimant had no credible explanation for how she came to be in possession of that currency.  Attorney Dudley was able to assist in the negotiated settlement of that case—a settlement that required the government to return almost 50% of the cash to his client.
  • U.S. v. M.B.:  The defendant was on supervised release for a major drug trafficking offense.  While on such release, he failed to report several large financial transactions to the United States Probation Office (“USPO”).  Upon learning of that failure, the USPO recommended that the court revoke the defendant’s release status and sentence him to a term of 10 to 16 months in federal custody.  After lengthy negotiations with the United States Attorney’s Office, Attorney Dudley was able to work out a settlement of the matter under which the defendant admitted the violation but was subjected to no jail time, only community service.
  • P. v. L.C.: The defendant was caught in possession of several dozen bottles of promethazine cough syrup; records seized from her residence implicated her in the trafficking of hundreds of more such bottles. Although Attorney Dudley’s client had no criminal history, the district attorney would not accept any deal that entailed the defendant serving less than one year of incarceration.  On an open guilty plea to the court, Attorney Dudley, over the prosecutor’s strong objection, convinced the judge to sentence his client to straight probation with no jail time.
  • P. v. R.C.: In this case, the defendant was a participant in scheme to defraud AFLAC health insurance company out of several hundred thousand dollars. As a special needs educator, the defendant’s career was itself was threatened by the prospect of a felony conviction on these fraud charges.  Through early negotiations with the prosecution, Attorney Dudley was able to limit his client’s financial culpability to roughly $16,000, to secure a probationary sentence with no custody component, and to provide for his client’s conviction to be reduced to a misdemeanor after full payment of restitution and successful completion of probation.
  • P. v. K.C.: In this felony fraud prosecution, the defendant was accused of bilking an elderly woman for over $100,000 in a boiler-room type scam. Because the defendant was a foreign citizen with only permanent residence status in the United States, he faced automatic deportation upon a felony conviction.  Attorney Dudley, however, negotiated a disposition with the district attorney’s office pursuant to which sentencing was postponed for over a year so that the defendant could pay full restitution before the judgment against him was entered.  After making that full payment, the defendant was sentenced to probation with no jail time and the understanding that his conviction would be reduced to misdemeanor upon successful completion of probation.
  • P. v. A.D.: When local police raided the top floor of a garage structure, they arrested the defendant standing next to a vehicle containing hundreds of unlawful marijuana plants. Taking immediate action to influence the decision of whether the case should be referred to the district attorney for felony prosecution, Attorney Dudley helped persuade the police to refrain from such a referral.  His client was never charged with any crime relating to his marijuana trafficking arrest.
  • U.S. v. S.G.:  DEA agents interdicted the defendant on an eastbound Amtrak train in Albuquerque, New Mexico, finding four kilos of heroin strapped to her body.  Attorney Dudley challenged the legality of that stop and seizure.  Knowing that the defense had a legitimate chance to prevail on its motion to suppress evidence, the government offered the defendant a plea agreement under which she would serve no more than 37 months in prison as opposed to the charged mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.  At sentencing, Attorney Dudley presented substantial mitigating evidence primarily concerning his client’s mental health issues—evidence which convinced the district court to impose a term of just one year and a day.
  • U.S. v. J.H.:  Arrested in Anchorage, Alaska, the defendant was charged with participating in an interstate conspiracy to distribute multiple kilos of cocaine and heroin.  Though the defendant faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for the alleged conspiracy, Attorney Dudley was able to secure a safety-valve reduction for his client.  After presenting significant mitigating circumstances to the court at sentencing, Attorney Dudley persuaded the district judge to impose a prison term of only 30 months.
  • U.S. v. J.H.:  The defendant was on supervised release for a federal drug offense in Nebraska when he was charged with two new federal cocaine trafficking cases, one in California and the other in Pennsylvania.  Both of the new cases carried potential twenty-year mandatory minimum sentences.  Attorney Dudley was able to work out a disposition by which all three cases would proceed to sentencing before the same judge in Pittsburgh, who had a reputation for being the most lenient of all the judges presiding over the three cases.  At sentencing, Attorney Dudley persuaded the court to impose an aggregate, concurrent prison term of 132 months.
  • P. v. A.J.: In this matter, the defendant was facing a life sentence for premeditated attempted murder involving the shooting of an unarmed owner of a marijuana distributorship. Although multiple surveillance cameras recorded his client’s participation in the robbery which led to the shooting, Attorney Dudley was able to secure his client a deal for seven years.
  • U.S. v. F.M.:  After being sentenced to time served in Phoenix, Arizona for his involvement in an illegal immigrant smuggling offense, the defendant never reported to his federal probation officer.  Years later, law-enforcement officers arrested him in Southern California.  Strikingly, Attorney Dudley was able to persuade a magistrate to release his client on a secured bond.  Then Attorney Dudley spent months presenting substantial mitigating evidence to the Assistant United States Attorney in Arizona.  Ultimately, the underlying case against the defendant was dismissed without him having to serve any time for his probation violation.
  • D.S. v. M.R.:  In this civil action, the plaintiff was shot with an air rifle on a marijuana cultivation farm purportedly owned by Attorney Dudley’s client, the principal defendant.  The plaintiff’s medical bills alone were over $300,000.  Attorney Dudley was able to settle the case, however, for $3,500.
  • U.S. v. C.R.:  The defendant, a tax preparer and state corrections officer, was charged with orchestrating a scheme to obtain fraudulent tax refunds by submitting false claims for monetary education credits on behalf of many clients.  The alleged tax loss was over $50,000.  After she entered into a plea agreement with the government, the United States Probation Office calculated her advisory guideline sentencing range as 12 to 18 months.  Presenting substantial mitigating factors to the district court at sentencing, particularly those concerning several medical conditions, Attorney Dudley was able to persuade the judge to impose a probationary sentence with no term of incarceration.
  • In re A.S:  A medical doctor in Northern California was accused of participating in a scheme to buy and sell counterfeit sports cards.  To help his client avoid both a major civil lawsuit and a potential criminal investigation, Attorney Dudley was hired by the doctor to negotiate a quick settlement of the matter.  After several weeks of negotiations, Attorney Dudley was able to reach a disposition of the matter pursuant to which the sports-card company dropped its pursuit of the matter in exchange for a relatively small financial payment and the doctor’s agreement to cease and desist from further involvement in card transactions.
  • U.S. v. E.W.:  In this prosecution, the government accused the defendant, a federal employee, with defrauding two federal agencies in relation to a residential property transaction.  The loss to those governmental entities was over $50,000.  Attorney Dudley was able to negotiate a disposition that resulted in the defendant serving no custody time and preserving his job.
  • P. v. J.W.: The juvenile defendant in this case, who suffers from a severe disability, was accused of making felonious terrorist threats against his school over social media. By presenting evidence of that disability, and other mitigating circumstances to the prosecution, Attorney Dudley was able to assist in securing a dismissal of all charges.
  • U.S. v. J.B.: The defendant in this case was an escaped federal prisoner.  Apprehended in Arkansas, he faced federal escape charges in California.  Attorney Dudley was able to obtain a dismissal of those charges from the prosecution.
  • P.v. M.B.: Attorney Dudley’s client was accused of embezzling several thousand dollars from the Starbucks at which she worked—an accusation that appeared to be supported by significant evidence. By intervening quickly and decisively with the police detective responsible for investigating and filing potential felony charges, the defense was able to persuade that detective not to refer the case to the district attorney in exchange for the defendant’s payment of full restitution.  Consequently, that client suffered no felony or misdemeanor conviction as a result of the embezzlement.
  • U.S. v. L.J.:  The defendant was indicted in the Northern District of Texas for transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of prostitution.  He was subsequently arrested by the U.S. Marshals in the Middle District of Tennessee when he appeared in court for an alleged probation on a state felony conviction.  Attorney Dudley flew into Nashville at the last minute for the detention hearing.  In support of its request that the defendant be held in custody pending trial in Amarillo, the government provided the defense with over 40 pages of damaging discovery moments before the hearing was set to begin.  Upon reading portions of that discovery, the defendant’s initial court-appointed lawyer, who apparently knew quite well the magistrate judge presiding over that proceeding, stated his opinion that the court would almost certainly grant the government’s detention motion based upon the newly disclosed evidence.  Disagreeing with that opinion, Attorney Dudley presented a strong defense case for pre-trial release during a lengthy hearing and the magistrate ultimately ordered the defendant released on an appearance bond with no collateral.
  • PEOPLE V. M.R.: The defendant in this case had entered a plea of guilty but received a much higher sentence than expected before a judge different than the one who accepted his guilty plea. He then moved to set aside that plea.  The motion was denied and the defendant filed a notice of appeal, hiring Attorney Dudley to handle that appeal. The trial court refused to issue a certificate of probable cause for the appeal, finding that the defendant had zero chance of winning his appeal. Normally, such a refusal signals a total loss in the appellate courts. But not for Attorney Dudley.  He took that refusal all the way up to the California Supreme Court, which unanimously reversed the decisions of both the superior court and the district court of appeals, ordering the trial judge to issue the
    certificate of probable cause.  Subsequent to that reversal, the appellate court set aside the defendant’s conviction, leading to his immediate and permanent release from a lengthy prison sentence.
  • U.S. V. J.L.: The defendant was charged in the Western District of Missouri with distributing several pounds of methamphetamine. He was initially looking at an advisory guideline range of roughly 14 to 16 years.
    After pleading guilty, he was still facing a 10-year mandatory minimum prison term. At sentencing, the government opposed the application of the safety-valve exception to the statutory mandatory minimum.
    Attorney Dudley convinced the court to overrule the prosecution’s objection to the safety valve. The court then sentenced his client to 90 months of incarceration.
  • P. v. S.F.:  The defendant in this life-sentence first-degree murder case killed the victim by shooting him almost one dozen times at point-blank range in the parking lot of a Northern California motel. This execution-style homicide was captured on security video.  Attorney Dudley, however, was able to create several doubts about the prosecution’s identification of the defendant.  Due to those doubts, the district attorney agreed to reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter–and two dismiss an additional unrelated felony charge which carried with it many years of potential mandatory consecutive prison time–in exchange for the defendant’s acceptance of a 21-year sentence.  As a result of this disposition, the defendant should be home in 10 to 12 years, as opposed to spending the rest of his life behind bars.
  • U.S. v. A.F.:  In this case, the defendant was charged with managing a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana from Phoenix, Arizona to Cleveland, Ohio.  Under the original indictment, he was facing a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence.  Nevertheless, Attorney Dudley was able to persuade the government that his client was only responsible for organizing marijuana shipments and thereby negotiated a plea to a lesser charge.  Although the defendant failed to provide his attorney with any mitigation information or supportive letters, despite several requests that he do so, Attorney Dudley was still able to obtain for his client a sentence of 21 months, significantly less than the applicable advisory guideline range and many years less than the ten-year minimum he was initially facing.
  • U.S. v. L.J.:  In this matter, the defendant was accused of violating the Mann Act by driving a 17-year-old girl from Tennessee to Texas and other states in a cross-country pimping and prostitution spree.  Despite allegations that he had threatened the girl with a firearm and allowed some friends to assault her sexually,  Attorney Dudley was able to persuade a federal magistrate judge in Nashville, Tennessee to release his client on bail after demonstrating the unsubstantiated nature of those allegations.  When the indictment was filed in Amarillo, Texas, the defendant was looking at a ten-year mandatory minimum prison term.  After the government found certain photographs of the victim on the defendant’s cellphone, it threatened to supersede the indictment with a child-pornography production charge, which would have carried a fifteen-year statutory mandatory minimum.  In the face of this, Attorney Dudley prepared an extension mitigation package on behalf of his young client for review by the Assistant United States Attorney.  As a result of reading those mitigation materials, the prosecution agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge, pursuant to which the defendant was facing a ten-year maximum, as opposed to a ten- or fifteen-year minimum.  Eventually, Mr. Dudley’s client received a 120-month sentence, although his advisory guideline range started at 168 months and the sentencing judge made it clear that he would have preferred imposing a prison term much higher than that.
  • P. v. R.T.:  In this case, the defendant was accused of possessing numerous firearms, along with quantities of methamphetamine at his home in Riverside, California.  Largely due to an alleged prior conviction for felony money laundering in Pecos, Texas–and another conviction for assault with a deadly weapon when he was very young,  the defendant was facing a prison sentence of over 15 years. The district attorney would not back off an early settlement offer of over six years in prison.  Nevertheless, Attorney Dudley was able to obtain records from Texas casting serious doubt about whether the Pecos case represented a conviction at all.  He also provided the court with a substantial mitigation memorandum in support of striking the assault conviction.  Although the court denied the motion to invalidate the alleged Texas conviction, it did strike the assault case.  Then the court sentenced Mr. Dudley’s client to six months in county jail, stayed pending the appeal of the motion to invalidate the Texas conviction.  If that appeal is ultimately successful–which it very well may be–the defendant will not have to serve any jail time at all as his entire case will be dismissed.
  • Varsity Blues:  In the Varsity Blues college-admission nationwide investigation, Attorney Dudley represented one of the principal parental targets of that investigation.  Due to his efforts, that parent was one of the few targets who was able to obtain from federal authorities a non-prosecution commitment.  After securing that commitment, Mr. Dudley represented the child whose college admission was the subject of the investigation.  In disciplinary proceedings before the college in question, he was able to convince the disciplinary committee to take no action whatsoever against his young client.
  • People v. R.P.:  The defendant in this case was charged with the first-degree murder of a street gang leader.  The evidence against him included a video which purportedly showed him firing a handgun toward the victim.  Attorney Dudley was able to settle the case for a voluntary manslaughter plea and a six-year prison sentence, which resulted in his client’s almost immediate release from jail.
  • U.S. v. R.B.:  In this matter, federal authorities charged the defendant with participating in a conspiracy to distribute synthetic psylocybin over the dark internet from Las Vegas to other areas of the country, including Ohio.  Attorney Dudley’s client was initially facing an advisory sentencing guideline range of 5-10 years, including possible money laundering charges.  By working out an agreement whereby his client disclosed the location of certain assets he had accumulated during that conspiracy, Mr. Dudley was able to secure a prosecutorial recommendation of two years imprisonment.  At sentencing, he was able to persuade the court to impose a much lesser penalty than that—only six months of incarceration.
  • State v. A.B.:  Arizona state troopers stopped the defendant’s fake FedEx truck just as it passed over the Nevada border.  Inside the truck, they found 1100 pounds of marijuana.  Initially, the defendant was facing a minimum prison sentence of several years.  By presenting various mitigating circumstances to the prosecution, including his client’s military service and mental health problems, however, Attorney Dudley was able to secure a settlement agreement for four months in local custody.  Though the state judge was reluctant to approve the deal, Mr. Dudley was able to overcome this reluctance and obtain the four-month sentence for his client.
  • People v. S.B.:  The defendant was charged with premeditated attempted murder, which carried a potential life sentence.  He had a substantial criminal history, including crimes of violence.  The evidence against the defendant centered on a convenience store parking lot security video which showed him shooting in the direction of the victim.  But, through ballistics evidence, Attorney Dudley was able to demonstrate that there was a second gun involved in the event.  Consequently, he persuaded the prosecutor to a thirteen-year settlement of the case.
  • People v. R.C.:  In this case, the defendant, a school teacher, obtained well over $100,000 in a health-insurance fraud scheme.  There was no viable defense to the charges.  But Attorney Dudley was able to work out a plea agreement for probation and no jail time and the case was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor upon his client’s payment of full restitution.
  • People v. H.E.:  Attorney Dudley represented both defendants, who were family members, in this case.  Between the both of them, they had obtained more than $200,000 in false health insurance claims.  There was a trail of signatures and bank deposits that clearly led to his clients.  Mr. Dudley, however, was able to settle the case for minimal monthly restitution payments, only two-years probation, and no jail time or community service.
  • U.S. v. C.C.:  While on federal supervised release, the defendant was arrested at a party carrying a concealed firearm.  He was then charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under state law and with a release violation under federal law. Between state and federal courts, the defendant was looking at several years of incarceration. Attorney Dudley filed a motion to suppress evidence in state court due to the police officers’ unlawful detention of his client.  That motion was denied.  But the district attorney realized that a successful appeal of the denial was highly likely.  Therefore, in exchange for the defendant agreeing not to file an appeal, the prosecution recommended a plea bargain involving no jail time.  Reluctantly, the judge, who had previously insisted that Mr. Dudley’s client go to state prison, approved that bargain.  In the meantime, Attorney Dudley convinced the United State Probation office to dismiss the alleged violation against his client and terminate his supervised release—and the federal judge quickly approved that dismissal and termination.
  • People v. K.C.:  The defendant, a Jamaican citizen, allegedly defrauded the victim out of $108,000 in a lottery fraud scheme.  By working out a deal that involved a substantial restitution downpayment with other payments to follow, Attorney Dudley was able to obtain a misdemeanor disposition for his client pursuant to which the defendant served no jail time whatsoever and was able to avoid deportation.
  • Investigation of C.D.:  The suspect in a hit-and-run automobile collision with substantial vehicular damage was approached by local law-enforcement authorities.  Through his intervention into the investigation, Attorney Dudley prevented his client from being charged with any criminal offense.
  • U.S. v. N.F.:  An attorney licensed to practice law in several states obtained a United States passport in another name under false pretenses.  Given that the photograph used in the passport application was that of the attorney in question, there was no defense to the allegation.  And the applicable sentencing guideline range was potentially as high as 30 months.  Working with an excellent forensic psychiatrist, Attorney Dudley was able to persuade federal prosecutors to settle the criminal matter for probation and no jail time, based upon his client’s difficult mental-health history.
  • People v. H.G.:  The defendant, a Mexican citizen, sold over $10,000 of counterfeit items to state investigators.  Attorney Dudley was able to persuade the district attorney to file all charges as misdemeanors and agree to a disposition in which his client would perform community service but face no incarceration.  That disposition also allowed his client to remain in the United States.
  • People v. W.P.:  Several decades ago, the defendant was convicted of murdering four people in a restaurant robbery.  The basis of that conviction was felony murder.  Pursuant to California’s relatively recent passage of S.B. 1437, Attorney Dudley filed a motion to set aside that murder judgment.  Though it was extremely uncertain whether his new client’s conviction qualified for such relief under the new statute, Mr. Dudley made certain tactical decisions that placed the district attorney into a corner from which he could not escape.  Consequently, with extreme reluctance, the court dismissed the murder conviction, resentenced the defendant, and released him from custody.
  • People v. F.J.:  The defendant in this case was serving an indeterminate life sentence for premeditated attempted murder and other offenses.  Attorney Dudley, working with other lawyers, at the height of the initial COVID pandemic, was able obtain the release from prison of his long-time client, who was otherwise ineligible for parole for many more decades.
  • Investigation of F.M.:  In this matter, the suspect caused a major traffic accident which resulted in substantial vehicular damage—and then fled the scene.  By following Attorney Dudley’s advice, the suspect was able to avoid any criminal charges.
  • U.S. v. D.M.:  The defendant in this ongoing case was charged in a multi-state drug-trafficking conspiracy.  Even though he had a substantial criminal record, and significant ties overseas, Attorney Dudley was able to secure his release on bond and he has remained at liberty for several years pending the resolution of his matter.
  • Investigation of D.H.:  Attorney Dudley’s client, a businessman, was accused of fraudulently claiming a substantial amount of damages under a home-insurance policy.  Mr. Dudley helped resolve the matter with the insurance company and prevent it from becoming a criminal complaint.
  • People v. M.R.:  The defendant was arrested at an airport after TSA found a loaded firearm in his carry-on bag.  This arrest resulted in felony charges being filed.  Attorney Dudley was able to convince the district attorney that his client had accidentally taken the wrong bag with him to the airport and the prosecution then dismissed the case.
  • U.S. v. J.R.:  This defendant was arrested in Houston, Texas in possession of over five kilograms of cocaine.  At the time of his arrest, he was on supervised release in Pensacola, Florida for a major federal drug conviction.  Initially, the defendant was facing a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence plus an advisory release violation guideline range of at least 30 months.  For over two years it appeared as though the Assistant United States Attorney was not going to agree to any disposition short of 120 months, in addition to whatever term the court imposed on the violation.  After lengthy and persistent negotiations, however, Attorney Dudley was able to work out a settlement that resulted in his client receiving an aggregate sentence of 84 months.
  • Investigation of T.S.:  The suspect in this case shot up the victim’s car with a handgun and then rammed the damaged vehicle multiple times as the victim attempted to drive away from the scene.  Police were called but the suspect escaped before their arrival.  By following Attorney Dudley’s advice in not speaking to the police or voluntarily cooperating with their investigation, the suspect was able to avoid being charged with any crimes in relation to the shooting or collisions.
  • People v. R.T.:  The defendant was charged in California with felony drug and firearm offenses.  The gun offenses were predicated on the defendant having a prior felony conviction for money laundering from Texas.  The defendant’s potential sentence was 15 to 20 years and the deputy district attorney was not willing to consider a plea bargain for anything less than 8 years because she believed that there was no viable defense to the charges.  Nonetheless, Attorney Dudley was able to obtain evidence from Texas that his client’s money laundering case had not actually been a conviction.  After a court trial and an appeal, the case finally settled in a manner that resulted in the judge imposing a sentence of probation with no jail time.
  • State v. A.L.:  The defendant was a medical doctor charged with voluntary manslaughter involving a firearm.  The defense at trial was based upon the accidental nature of the weapon’s discharge and a defect in its manufacture.  Attorney Dudley was part of a team of lawyers who were able to obtain a jury acquittal of their client.
  • U.S. v. T.T.:  This was an international extradition case in which the United States was requesting the extradition of the defendant from Canada to face major federal drug-trafficking charges.  Working with a lawyer in Canada, Attorney Dudley was able to demonstrate that American law-enforcement authorities had likely violated Canadian law in their efforts to ensnare their client in the charged conspiracy.  Consequently, the extradition case was dismissed and the defendant was allowed to remain at liberty in his home country.

  • Investigation of A.F.:  The suspect  was under investigation for SBA PPP loan fraud, a very hot area of federal law-enforcement at the present time.  Several months ago, the federal prosecutor assigned to the case informed defense counsel of the government’s intent to indict the suspect.  Attorney Dudley then asked the prosecutor to hold off until the defense could present its side of the case, including the report of a forensic account.  Responding that “there is nothing you could tell me that would change our minds about indicting your client” for the alleged fraud, the Assistant United States Attorney nevertheless agreed to wait for a defense presentation.  Working with the forensic accountant, Attorney Dudley and his co-counsel then provided the government with strong evidence that, while their client may have not initially spent all the SBA loan funds on business expenses, at the end of the day, the targeted suspect had committed no crime.  This week, the government informed defense counsel that it had decided not to file any charges in this matter.

  • U.S. v. A.F.: The defendant in this case was a community leader and developer of real estate projects in low-income areas of Cleveland, Ohio. Because he would not participate in a federal government effort to remove multiple local officials in Cleveland through criminal indictments, he himself was indicted for committing wire fraud in the development of a market with government funding in an East Cleveland food desert. Prior to trial, the defendant was offered a plea bargain pursuant to which he would likely have served close to 60 months in federal prison. He rejected that plea proposal and instead went to trial. At trial, Attorney Dudley and his co-counsel demonstrated that the government had used weaponized, fake accounting to isolate an artificial period of time during which the market project was not receiving the funds intended for it. The defendant, however, was black and ultimately convicted by an all-white jury, with several of the jurors sobbing at the verdict. At sentencing, the government requested a prison term of over six years. Ultimately, the court sentenced Mr. Dudley’s client to 18 months in the BOP, which was the lowest sentence for that type of crime rendered in the United States (absent substantial assistance to the goverment) over the last ten years. Moreover, the trial record established by the defense could very well lead to the complete reversal of the client’s conviction.
  • U.S. v. A.S.: The defendant in this federal drug case was a career offender with over a dozen felony convictions involving both drugs and violence in Cleveland, Ohio. Initially, the evidence against him looked overwhelming. But through diligent investigation, Mr. Dudley and his co-counsel drilled major holes in the prosecution’s case, giving their client a chance at a full acquittal. Nevertheless, if convicted, the defendant would have faced a mandatory life sentence without parole. Concerned with the prospect of the defendant obtaining an immediate acquittal, the government agreed to a settlement in which the client would receive no more than 156 months. While expressing almost outrage at why the government would have agreed to such a plea bargain when the defendant would otherwise have received more than 25 years on a guilty plea, the court reluctantly accepted the agreement and sentenced him to the 156-month prison term.
  • U.S. v. N.F.: The defendant in this case was an attorney charged with making a false passport application. There was no conceivable legal defense to the charge, filed in Columbus, Ohio. Yet Attorney Dudley worked out a sentence of straight probation with no jail time.
  • People v. S.M.: The defendant here was a major distributor of counterfeit sports paraphernalia throughout Northern California. As a habitual offender, he was originally looking at over five years in state prison. Through the efforts of Attorney Dudley, specifically identifying multiple medical conditions as mitigating factors in that case, his client received straight probation with no jail time in San Mateo County, affectionately known by many criminal attorneys as the Alabama of Northern California.
  • U.S. v. Multiple Vehicles: This was a civil forfeiture action in Wichita, Kansas. Throughout the matter, the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case expressed supreme confidence that the government would win the case outright. After Mr. Dudley prevailed on a procedural issue, however, the matter was resolved in a manner extremely favorable to his client.