Federal Criminal Cases Demand a Different Level of Experience and Judgment
Federal criminal prosecutions are unlike any other form of criminal litigation. They are not reactive, fast-moving cases built on limited evidence or hurried investigations. They are deliberate, resource-intensive, and built slowly through coordinated multi-agency efforts involving federal agents, government analysts, confidential informants, and long-term surveillance.
By the time an indictment is filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the government typically has:
- conducted controlled purchases,
- analyzed months of digital data,
- subpoenaed financial or communication records,
- interviewed cooperating witnesses,
- executed search warrants, and
- presented testimony to a federal grand jury.
Federal prosecutions carry extraordinary consequences. They require an attorney who understands not only the governing law and sentencing structure, but also the investigative methods that produced the case, the strategic posture of federal prosecutors, and the way federal judges evaluate argument, credibility, and preparation.
For nearly 14 years, Attorney Ryan H. James has represented individuals facing serious criminal charges in both state and federal courts, including the Western District of Pennsylvania and in federal direct appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Our approach to federal defense reflects the seriousness of these cases — grounded in preparation, strategic judgment, and disciplined advocacy.
Awards
How Federal Investigations Work — and Why It Matters for the Defense
A federal case does not begin with an arrest. It begins with an investigation.
Federal agencies — FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, Postal Inspectors, IRS-CI — often work jointly, sharing information through task forces and coordinating with local law enforcement.
They rely heavily on:
- confidential informants who have their own exposure, motivations, and credibility problems;
- cooperating witnesses seeking sentence reductions;
- Title III wiretap orders, minimization logs, and thousands of intercepted calls or messages;
- digital forensics from seized phones, computers, and cloud-based accounts;
- grand jury subpoenas for records that often exceed the scope of typical state-level discovery;
- agent memoranda and investigative reports summarizing months of surveillance.
Understanding how these investigations are built is essential. A federal defense lawyer must identify what is missing, what is overstated, what is inadmissible, and what the government strategically withheld until indictment.
We approach these cases by reconstructing the investigation from the ground up — analyzing the decisions agents made, the assumptions they relied on, and the gaps or weaknesses embedded in the government’s theory.
Federal Conspiracy Doctrine — Where the Government Sees Strength, We See Vulnerability
Many federal cases are charged as conspiracies under 21 U.S.C. § 846 or related statutes.
These charges give prosecutors enormous power because they allow them to:
- attribute conduct of one person to another,
- inflate drug weight or economic loss based on “foreseeability,”
- rely on cooperators to tell a simplified, sometimes self-serving narrative,
- treat loosely connected individuals as co-conspirators.
But conspiracy law cuts both ways.
The government’s broad theory exposes weaknesses:
- Did the defendant knowingly join the alleged conspiracy?
- What acts were actually attributable to the defendant?
- Were the cooperator’s statements reliable, consistent, or corroborated?
- Are the “links” between individuals meaningful or merely proximity?
- Does the evidence truly show agreement, or is it built on inference and assumption?
- Can the government actually tie the defendant to the charged drug weight?
We examine every part of the conspiracy theory and challenge the government’s framing of the case.
Conspiracy cases look airtight until someone actually examines the details.
Motion Practice in Federal Court — Precision and Restraint
Federal judges expect well-researched, tightly argued motions that adhere strictly to the record and the law. We do not file unnecessary motions. We file the ones that matter — and we litigate them seriously.
Our federal motion practice includes:
- suppression challenges based on improper searches, seizures, warrants, or digital forensics;
- challenges to wiretap necessity, minimization, and execution;
- motions to exclude unreliable government expert testimony;
- litigation involving statements, proffers, and Miranda issues;
- evidentiary objections that preserve issues for appeal;
- challenges to the scope and sufficiency of the indictment.
Federal litigation requires a disciplined hand. Frivolous or shallow filings undermine credibility — something we will never risk. Every filing is crafted with purpose, preparation, and anticipation of how the court will analyze the issue.
Federal Sentencing — Advocacy That Begins Long Before the PSR
Federal sentencing is not simply a question of guideline calculations. It is a process that requires early mitigation, meaningful narrative advocacy, and a willingness to challenge the easy assumptions baked into the Presentence Report.
We focus on:
- guideline calculations and enhancements that are often overstated or unsupported;
- role adjustments that can change the entire sentencing landscape;
- safety-valve eligibility;
- downstream consequences of criminal history scoring;
- § 3553(a) arguments that humanize the client and contextualize conduct;
- variances based on personal history, rehabilitation, or undue rigidity of the guidelines.
Federal sentencing is where the client’s life story matters most. It is where rote, formulaic arguments fail — and where thoughtful, individualized submissions can make a measurable difference.
We do not write template sentencing memoranda. We write the kind of advocacy that treats a client as a whole person, not a guideline range.
Federal Appeals Before the Third Circuit — Where Precision Matters Most
A federal appeal is not a second trial. It is a focused legal review governed by standards that require discipline, clarity, and deep familiarity with the record.
We represent clients in:
- direct appeals from federal convictions,
- sentencing appeals,
- challenges to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions,
- constitutional issues preserved at trial,
- legal challenges to the scope of indictments and conspiracy findings.
The Third Circuit expects briefs that:
- state the issues with precision,
- analyze the record with accuracy,
- respect the standard of review,
- and present compelling legal argument without unnecessary rhetoric.
Our appellate experience informs our approach at every stage — from pre-indictment investigation to trial strategy to sentencing.
Why Clients Choose James Law, LLC for Federal Defense
Federal defense cannot be done at volume. We take on cases that require time, attention, and judgment, and we limit our caseload accordingly.
Knowing how these cases are built allows us to identify how they come apart.
Our experience in federal district court and the Third Circuit provides a continuity that many state-only practitioners lack.
We review thoroughly every aspect of the government’s case and go toe-to-toe with the prosecution with disciplined attention.
Mitigation and variance arguments matter. We develop them carefully and early.
We preserve issues properly and litigate with an eye toward appellate viability.
If You Are Facing Federal Charges or Investigation
Federal cases move deliberately — and the consequences are substantial. These matters require an attorney who understands the structure and strategy of federal prosecution, and who brings serious preparation and judgment to every stage. To discuss your case, fill out the form or call 412-896-1349.
Contact James Law, LLC: serious federal criminal-defense representation in the Western District of Pennsylvania and in federal appellate courts.
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.