Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

"Metro Atlanta may get a little bloodier. Call it a sign of success."

So begins a recent article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution about "progress" in the so-called war on drugs.

Federal drug agents are claiming that they have "decreased the quality and raised the price of drugs on the street." As a result, they are expecting more violence between drug dealers, and more crimes committed against average citizens because the drug users need to steal more money to buy drugs at the inflated price.

The author of the article, Steve Visser, has a good understanding of how drugs get to Atlanta, and why the traffic has increased so dramatically over the past few years.

Metro Atlanta became an outpost of organized crime for reasons of geography, logistics and immigration. It also has a strong and diverse market for drugs — powder cocaine for the suburbs, crack cocaine for the city, crystal meth for the exurbs and ecstasy for Midtown raves — for the cartels to fill, Killorin said.

Moreover, the region is a transportation hub — by rail, air and interstate highways and even by sea, by way of Savannah — to make it a natural distribution point, whether to New Jersey or Chicago.

"We've got the busiest airport. We've got three major interstates passing through. We're just accessible," said Atlanta Police Lt. Robert Browning, deputy director of HIDTA. "It is not that the drugs are coming to Atlanta and stopping. This is the transportation route for the whole East Coast."

The reason is simple logistics.

Cocaine is still manufactured in South America, but instead of being shipped directly to the U.S. by plane or ship — as was the case in the Miami Vice heyday — the Colombia cartels are now selling it to Mexican cartels.

Those organizations then ship it, along with marijuana, methamphetamine and heroin, to Atlanta, a major metro area with a large Hispanic population in which the traffickers can hide.

They often hide shipments in cargoes of legitimate goods that thousands of trucks ferry across the border each day. Drug shipments even have been hidden with truckloads of produce bound for the state Farmer's Market in Forest Park, according to the 2007 HIDTA annual report.

The cartels' operatives in metro Atlanta repackage the drugs for distribution in the region or shipment elsewhere, Benson said. Then, millions in dollars are transported back to Atlanta, where the cash is packed and ship to Mexico.

The trafficking organizations rent houses in affluent neighborhoods in Cobb and Gwinnett counties that shield them from surveillance because they're on large, private lots, the HIDTA report noted.

Of course, an increase in drug traffic and drug arrests keeps criminal defense attorneys busy as well. Atlanta defense lawyers have seen a lot of federal drug cases in the past few years. In fact, our law firm has been involved in a few federal drug trials where the quantity of drugs seized exceeded several hundred kilos. In a case I tried two years ago, federal drug agents had also seized 4 million dollars in cash as a result of a drug operation in Atlanta and Marietta, Georgia.

We have posted on several of these cases before - 88 people indicted for drug conspiracy in Atlanta; and my recent drug trafficking case in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

I don't see how an increase in violence is a good thing, or a sign of the demise of drugs being imported into the U.S. I am sure the federal government could be a lot more effective if they spent just a fraction of that money on treatment and reducing the demand for drugs. But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. There is just too much money and bureaucracy dedicated to this un-ending, and un-winnable, war on drugs.

Posted by Page Pate | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes , Georgia Criminal Law

Bookmark:

In Atlanta, Georgia, two TSA security screeners and one Delta Airlines employee appeared in federal court yesterday after being indicted on drug charges. The charges are based on their alleged involvement in agreeing to help courier drugs on Delta flights from Atlanta to New York. The arrests, and the recent indictment, are the result of a undercover investigation by federal agents in Atlanta.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story. So does the Atlanta Business Chronicle. The arraignment was also covered by the local Atlanta tv news media.

It appears the charges relate to an undercover operation by the DEA. A DEA agent convinced a TSA employee to help smuggle suitcases containing drugs through the security checkpoints and deliver them to a Delta employee. The Delta employee would then fly the suitcases to the undercover source in New York. The DEA apparently used fake drugs in the sting. According to the criminal complaint, the price for the delivery was $8,000 for two suitcases in the first deal. There were apparently two other transactions with the same DEA agent.

Apparently, this is not the first time Delta employees have been charged with smuggling drugs. Here is a story from the New York Times in 1997.

These are serious charges in federal court. Depending on the quantity of drugs involved, there may be mandatory minimum penalties of 10 years and up. Heavy fines are also a possibility. Losing their jobs is almost a certainty.

Defense lawyers for the defendants were able to secure bond for the three, and they are likely out of jail now and awaiting another court date. In federal court, at least in Atlanta, there is usually a pretrial conference shortly after the arraignment to determine if there are any substantive motions that need to be heard prior to trial. It is also a good opportunity for the defense attorneys to make sure they have all the evidence and other discovery materials that the government must provide pursuant to the federal criminal rules.

The fact that the government did not ask for detention for these defendants suggests that case may be resolved for something less than the mandatory minimum sentences. That usually happens only when the defendants cooperate with the government, or when they have no prior convictions and qualify for "safety valve" treatment under the federal sentencing guidelines.

Of course, that all assumes that the government can prove its case. As we have learned in several other federal cases, the facts are not always as they appear from reading a criminal complaint. But those facts do make interesting headlines. And blog topics.

Posted by Page Pate | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes , Federal Criminal Law

Bookmark:

Not that this is surprising news, but a "reliable" confidential drug informant pleaded guilty today in federal court in Atlanta, Georgia to lying to federal drug agents about drug deals. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Any defense lawyer who has tried a drug case in federal court can tell you about snitches. In virtually every federal drug case (especially those involving drug conspiracy charges), the government will call informants to testify. Sometimes the informants are paid by the government, sometimes they are trying to avoid being charged by cooperating. The most common type of informant, however, is the co-defendant who has already pleaded guilty and is hoping for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the federal sentencing guidelines.

Defendants who are facing time for federal drug charges have a strong motivation to do whatever the government asks them to do. It is one of only two ways to avoid a draconian mandatory minimum sentence; and it is the only way to avoid a mandatory minimum if the person already has a record.

The problem is that informants in drug cases are generally not the most credible people to begin with (most have long criminal records). When these informants are offered the chance to cut their sentence by several years for "cooperating," you often end up with some highly dubious testimony, and more often than not, some questionable convictions.

There is no way to tell how many people have been convicted based on informants who have lied. Our firm is often asked to handle federal criminal appeals where the person was convicted of federal drug charges based solely on informant and co-defendant testimony. Unfortunately, the defense lawyer who tried the case could only try to impeach the informant with his criminal record and his plea deal with the government. It is very difficult to prove that an informant is actually lying unless the defense lawyer has access to the same information the government has. But that doesn't happen in federal court.

There is some good news. I tried a federal drug case recently where the government's evidence against my client was based almost entirely on the testimony of five informants who were given deals to testify. Despite the testimony of these five witnesses, the jury did not convict my client. Several of the jurors told me afterwards that they did not believe the informants. They said they placed very little weight on their testimony because they thought the informants had a strong motivation to lie. I was pleased to hear that, and I've been told by other federal criminal lawyers that they have heard the same thing from their jurors.

But the best way to stop informants from lying is to stop rewarding them for it and start prosecuting them. Maybe the prosecution of this informant in Atlanta will be the first of many. I know there is no shortage of lying informants out there if the government wants to pursue them.

Posted by Page Pate | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes , Federal Criminal Law

Bookmark:

The U.S. Attorney's office in Atlanta indicted 88 individuals who are alleged to be connected to two major drug cartels in Mexico. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the federal government's investigation in this case, which involved law enforcement officers from 300 agencies, led to the seizure of $10 million in cash, 111 kilograms of cocaine, 17 pounds of crystal methamphetamine, and 32 weapons.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) alleges that the currency was headed back to Mexico and the packaging of the drugs revealed unique markings indicating that they originated with the Mexican drug cartels.

The DEA has spent much of its resources over the past several years targeting Mexican drug trafficking organizations and considers the recent indictments a major blow to their alleged movement of drugs through Atlanta. Atlanta has become a major hub for drug trafficking in recent years.

Our firm has handled several recent federal cases involving alleged Mexican drug trafficking organizations in Atlanta, several of those cases involved literally truckloads of drugs and millions of dollars in seized cash. In these cases, the government sought to tender their DEA agents as "experts" in the field of Mexican drug trafficking organizations. The agents would then testify that the seemingly innocent conduct that our clients had engaged in was consistent with what their investigations had revealed were the practices employed by Mexican drug trafficking organizations. We have vigorously fought for the exclusion of this sort of testimony on the grounds that the agents were not "experts" in this field and that they could never prove that they ever reliably determined just how Mexican drug trafficking organizations did, in fact, operate. Moreover, the government has never been able to prove that "Mexican" drug trafficking organizations actually behave any different than those of other nationalities.

Many Georgia criminal defense attorneys have been critical of this "expert testimony" believing that it is nothing more than a ploy to allow the agents to tell the jury "trust us, we know these guys are drug dealers." This type of testimony has been offered in several cases where there was no other evidence at trial that the defendants had possessed or distributed drugs.

With the wealth of information that these recent indictments should reveal about Mexican drug trafficking organizations, we'll see whether these agents really knew what they were talking about.

Posted by Bernard Brody | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes , Federal Criminal Law

Bookmark:

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Atlanta, Georgia confirmed today that Dr. Phil Astin will likely face additional criminal charges in federal court for over-prescribing testosterone to Chris Benoit, the pro wrestler who killed himself, his wife and young son earlier this year in Fayetteville, Georgia.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the details.

Dr. Astin was already under a federal indictment due to an alleged "excessive" number of prescriptions he wrote while practicing medicine in Carrollton, Georgia. The criminal case is currently pending in federal court. Dr. Astin's former defense lawyer had challenged the basis for the search warrant that led to the seizure of his file and patient records. No word on when the court will rule on that challenge. (Usually, it takes several months. First, the magistrate judge issues a "report and recommendation" that goes to the district judge. That judge then evaluates the report and makes the final decision.)

This is not the first time federal prosecutors in Atlanta have challenged a physician's decision about prescribing medications. I am currently representing a well-respected physician who is being charged with authorizing certain medications to be prescribed over the internet for patients with obesity problems or erectile dysfunction. That case is scheduled to go to trial in December. The government's theory is that the doctors (there are several being charged) should not have authorized medications to people based on medical histories and other information they provided over the internet. At the time, however, there were no federal laws preventing such prescriptions, and the American Medical Association had not yet developed a position on that practice. Our position is that a doctor should not be held criminally liable for what is basically a medical decision. We'll see what happens in December.

As for Dr. Astin, I am not representing him, so I do not know all the facts of his case. To me, it appears that the government is trying to do the same thing to him - turn some questionable medical decisions into federal crimes. Not sure how his case will turn out, but it may set a precedent for prosecuting doctors for being negligent in their practice. Being negligent used to mean a trip to the state medical board, now it may mean a trip to the pokey.

Posted by Page Pate | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes , Federal Criminal Law

Bookmark:

A federal criminal trial in Rome, Georgia continues today. It's an interesting case involving a local businessman (Mario Armas) who is accused of funding a multi-million dollar drug smuggling operation. He is charged with violating federal drug laws, and also of being involved in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise. He is looking at 20 years minimum if convicted. Read the indictment filed in the federal district court in Rome.

The trial is expected to last over a week. The government witnesses will include Armas' former business partner (an admitted drug smuggler) and two professional rodeo workers who allegedly transported truckloads of cash and drugs. According to the federal indictment, over 2,000 pounds of marijuana was distributed in Georgia through this conspiracy. And millions of dollars in cash changed hands, including over $1 million as ransom for a kidnapped associate.

The case is covered in the Macon, Georgia Telegraph, and in the Rome News-Tribune.

Although the facts of this case are somewhat unusual, there is nothing unusual about the U.S. Attorney's Office using drug dealers as snitches at trial. I have tried over a dozen federal drug trials in the last few years and have seen it happen many times. Sometimes it's successful, and sometimes not. It usually depends on how credible the snitch is, and how many snitches the government calls to testify.

Considering the severity of the federal statutes and sentencing guidelines, there is an incredibly strong motivation to become a government witness. The only way to avoid the mandatory minimum sentences in federal drug cases is to either cooperate and give the government "substantial assistance" in a criminal investigation, or qualify for "safety valve" treatment as a first-time drug offender. Even under the safety valve, a person only gets credit if they agree to tell the government everything about their offense, and that assumes the government believes their story.

So, the only real way to significantly reduce a federal drug sentence is to testify and get the coveted 5K2.1 motion. That allows the court to give a much lower sentence than either the sentencing guidelines or the statutes ordinarily require.

But there are no guarantees. Once you roll over, you're at the government's mercy. We'll see if these witnesses end up better off than Mr. Armas as a result of their guilty pleas.

Posted by Page Pate | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes , Federal Criminal Law

Bookmark:

I argued a federal criminal appeal in front of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday in Atlanta, Georgia. It was my sixth trip for an oral argument before that court. The case involved a very large drug seizure in Cobb County, Georgia ($4 million in cash and 270 kilos of cocaine and methamphetamine).

We were arguing about the scope of a consent search given by our client, the owner of the auto repair shop where the trailer was found. Our client told agents they could search the shop, but specifically told them that he did not own the trailer. Our position was that our client's statement limited the scope of the search under the Fourth Amendment, so that the agents had no right to look in the back of the trailer where they found the cash.

Under United States Supreme Court authority, a person has the absolute right to limit the scope of a search they otherwise consent to. For example, a person could consent to a search of their car when stopped by a police officer, but tell him that he could not search the trunk. The cops could then only search the trunk if they had independent probable cause to do so. (Ironically, the person telling them not to search the trunk may have just given it to them!)

In our case, our client had no problem allowing the agents to search his shop, but felt he did not have the authority to let them search a trailer that did not belong to him. They searched it anyway and found all that cash.

The judges were very prepared (as they usually are in that court), and asked a lot of questions. I don't expect a decision for at least a few weeks, maybe months.

The outcome could be huge. If we win, our client gets a new trial in federal court here in Atlanta. And, more importantly, the government can't use the $4 million in cash against him. That won't guarantee a win, but it will certainly help.

Posted by Page Pate | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes , Federal Criminal Law

Bookmark: