Contra Costa County Federal Crime Lawyer
Daniel Horowitz: Expert Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer
Daniel Horowitz is a seasoned federal criminal defense attorney in Lafayette (Contra Costa County) with a track record of litigating some of the most intricate federal cases at the trial level.
While his office is Contra Costa County based (Near the United States District Court, Northern District of California) his practice has taken him nationwide and worldwide.
Daniel Horowitz: High-Profile Federal Court Representation
Daniel Horowitz has represented numerous high-profile clients, including former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavel Lazarenko in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Horowitz managed the international charges against Lazarenko, which spanned multiple countries such as Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Canada, the Netherlands, and Cyprus. These charges primarily involved fraud related to natural gas transactions and state-owned farm activities. Despite the severity of the allegations, Horowitz’s relentless efforts led to the dismissal of all international counts by United States District Court Judge Martin Jenkins, who now serves on the California Supreme Court. Lazarenko’s case was marked by political intrigue, with recordings revealing discussions among Ukrainian leaders about targeting political opponents. Horowitz’s defense highlighted these political motivations, ultimately vindicating Lazarenko on most charges.
This case underscores the importance of expert legal representation in navigating complex international legal battles and protecting the reputations of those unjustly accused.
Other High-Profile Federal Cases
Horowitz has also defended an alleged leader of the MS-13 gang operating out of Dolores Park in San Francisco. His federal defense work spans globally, including cases in China, Ukraine, Canada, and the Netherlands. Recently, Daniel’s expertise has been showcased on national television networks, where he has provided analysis on the federal criminal charges against former President Donald Trump. (Note: Attorney Horowitz is not the Daniel Horowitz of the Conservative Review.) He represented Sean Twomey, accused of operating the largest illegal gun sales organization in the United States, and successfully set aside the conviction of Michael Dutkel in a groundbreaking habeas corpus petition raising jury misconduct.
Daniel was instrumental in the Bench/Bar Committee that developed the initial criminal discovery rules for electronic materials in federal criminal defense. He pioneered the use of MP3 players for criminal defendants in federal custody, enabling them to review federal wiretaps and witness interviews before trial. Alongside Jim Davis, Daniel was at the forefront of integrating electronic discovery in criminal cases, and he was a beta tester for now-established software like DTSearch and Casemap.
When facing federal criminal charges or investigations, having an experienced federal lawyer is crucial. Daniel Horowitz stands out as a top choice for aggressive and effective federal defense.
What Are Federal Crimes?
Federal crimes are offenses created and prosecuted by the United States government, rather than individual states. These crimes are typically defined by statutes enacted by Congress.
The number of federal crimes is extensive. For a comprehensive review of federal criminal cases, visit our blog.
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
Contra Costa County Location - National Reputation for Excellence
-
He is approachable but serious. Mr. Horowitz is the perfect balance of what someone wants in a lawyer. Not only is he approachable enough to gain and value your trust, but he's a bulldog in the courtroom. Despite his kindness, I have never once doubted his ability to provide me with THE BEST representation in court. I'm so thankful to have found a lawyer capable of such a delicate balancing act.Molly A.
-
Tough, humble, has integrity - simply THE best. With Dan it is not so much about the money but about doing what is right. A very rare breed. He has honesty and integrity and the jurys see it. If he doesn't believe in the case or the client he won't waste your time or his. But you better listen to him!...Believe an trust in him. I did and I am totally indebted to him. He is "The best of the best." Thank you Dan for all you have done and continue to do. Carole~ Arbuckle v. Board of Chiropractic ExaminersCarole A.
-
Very caring individual. Daniel handled my divorce back in 1991 and is a very understanding and caring person who took care of my needs with patience and understanding. He is one of a very few of that special breed. Wish to God there were more like him. Thanks, Daniel.Jean M.
-
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