Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer
Daniel Horowitz is a Top 100 trial lawyer expert in federal criminal defense. His high profile federal cases include the successful defense of Ukraine Prime Minister Pavel Lazarenko on all internationally based money laundering and other federal criminal charges. Daniel Horowitz has been a law school professor and is a frequent lecturer and television legal commentator.
Other High-Profile Federal Cases
- Defense of the alleged leader of the MS-13 gang operating out of Dolores Park in San Francisco.
- Defense of the alleged largest gun distributor in Northern California.
- Successfully set aside the decades long drug conviction of Michael Dutkel in a groundbreaking habeas corpus petition raising jury misconduct.
- Major Medical Fraud jury trial in San Jose, California involving millions of dollars in overbilling.
- Computer Chip resale bribery jury trial in Oakland, California
- “Silk Road” narcotics case (resolved) in San Francisco, California
- Amicus Brief for the United States Supreme Court in Hodari D. case
Technology & Criminal Discovery
Daniel Horowitz has been on the cutting edge of legal technology long before the AI Revolution.
- Member Northern District of California Bench/Bar Committee that developed the initial criminal discovery rules for electronic materials in federal criminal defense.
- Established first use of MP3 players for criminal defendants in federal custody, enabling them to review federal wiretaps and witness interviews before trial.
- Beta Tester for now-established software product DTSearch
- Beta Tester for now-established legal software product Casemap.
- Featured user for legal software product Cloudlex.
Legal Commentary
- Scott Peterson jury trial legal commentator for CNN, Nancy Grace Show, MSNBC
- Michael Jackson jury trial legal commentator for Nancy Grace Show, MSNBC
- Savage Nation legal commentator trials and accusations against President Trump
- Fox News, ABC News, KTVU and other local stations
- San Francisco Chronicle, East Bay Times, Mercury News
.
Navigating Federal Sentencing Guidelines
Understanding federal sentencing guidelines can be as complex as solving quadratic equations. For financial crimes, the “loss amount” is the primary factor influencing the penalty. However, determining this amount can be contentious. Is it based on retail or wholesale value, intended loss, or actual loss? Different federal districts may have varying rules, and some issues remain unresolved.
The federal sentencing guidelines are established by a committee and are followed by all federal judges. These guidelines provide a framework for sentencing but allow for some judicial discretion.
Financial Crimes
In financial crimes, the loss amount significantly impacts the severity of the sentence. The debates around calculating this amount are extensive and nuanced, often leading to different interpretations and outcomes.
Drug Cases
In drug-related offenses, mandatory minimum sentences play a crucial role. The possibility of reducing charges to lesser offenses, such as “phone counts,” can add to the complexity. Applying fundamental logic or consistency to these rules can be challenging due to their intricate nature.
Navigating these guidelines requires a deep understanding of the legal framework and the ability to interpret and argue the nuances effectively.
Federal Sentencing Guidelines
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are a set of rules established by the United States Sentencing Commission to create a uniform policy for sentencing individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors in federal courts1. These guidelines were introduced in 1987 to address disparities in sentencing and ensure consistency across the federal judicial system.
Federal Sentencing Guidelines:
Structured Sentencing: The guidelines provide a framework for judges to determine appropriate sentences based on the severity of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history. This structured approach helps to reduce variability in sentencing.
Offense Levels and Criminal History: Each federal crime is assigned an offense level, and defendants are categorized into criminal history categories. The combination of these two factors determines the sentencing range.
Adjustments and Departures: The guidelines allow for adjustments based on specific circumstances, such as the defendant’s role in the offense or acceptance of responsibility2. Judges can also depart from the guidelines in certain cases, either imposing harsher or more lenient sentences based on unique factors1.
Mandatory and Advisory Nature: Initially, the guidelines were mandatory, but a 2005 Supreme Court decision (United States v. Booker) rendered them advisory3. This means that while judges must consider the guidelines, they are not bound to follow them strictly and can use their discretion in sentencing3.
Periodic Updates: The United States Sentencing Commission regularly reviews and updates the guidelines to reflect changes in law, judicial decisions, and feedback from the criminal justice community4.
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines play a crucial role in promoting fairness and transparency in the federal sentencing process, ensuring that similar offenses receive similar sentences while allowing for judicial discretion in unique cases.
You can look at the entire Federal Sentencing Guidelines here.
While the goal of the federal sentencing guidelines is promote fairness and uniformity in sentencing, most federal defense lawyers find that it is a bog of complications, possibilities and dangers which have little uniformity and little case by case consistency.
Learn more: The Criminal Process Explained by the California Courts with Comments by Daniel Horowitz (lawyersinlafayette.com)
Client Testimonials
-
We have used Mr. Horowitz for over 10 years as our business lawyer. We have never had any problems. He guides us with great wisdom and caring.Albert J.
-
My experience with Dan was great. I appreciate the knowledge Dan has and the professionalism they exhibit. I would highly recommend the Law Office Of Daniel Horowitz. My family and I are truly grateful we worked with him.Brandon D.
-
He is very tough. He made me listen to him and work his way. He was right. It worked. I won my case and I am very lucky.Avvo Reviewer
-
I cannot express enough gratitude for the outstanding legal services provided by Daniel Horowitz. He not only possesses an in-depth understanding of the law but also demonstrated a genuine commitment to me. He took the time to listen attentively to my concerns, providing clear and concise explanations of the legal processes involved in my case. He made me feel heard and supported during this tumultuous time. What impressed me most was his unwavering dedication to achieving the best possible outcome for me. The attention to detail and strategic approach to my case were evident at every stage. I am eternally grateful towards Daniel for what he has done for me and I wholeheartedly recommend his services to anyone seeking legal representation. Thank you DanKento T.