Insights < BACK TO ALL INSIGHTS
Dismissive of Dismissal
FEATURED
September 25, 2026
Dismissive of Dismissal
By: James Trusty
During the two Trump administrations, a trend has begun to emerge of federal judges challenging the once-unrestricted authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to dismiss indictments. The longstanding framework of separation of powers suggests this judicial pushback is unsupported activism, but the judges claim the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rules”) do not relegate their role to rubber stamping. Ultimately, this trajectory may lead us to an impossible impasse—a game of chicken where reputations, relationships and the balance of power might be forever altered in the context of dismissal. Pursuant to Rule 48(a), “[t]he government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment.” Exactly what “leave of court” means in terms of judicial scrutiny is the challenging question. Some…
In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally.
August 18, 2026
In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally.
By: Robert Ward
In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally. Any attorney who has litigated a case against a party proceeding pro se is familiar with the common refrain that courts liberally construe pro se filings.[1] This leniency was not enough for one Connecticut litigant. In a scheme that gives new meaning to the phrase “reading between the lines,” pro se plaintiff Matthew Elliot…
The DOJ Steps Up for Military Families
June 29, 2026
The DOJ Steps Up for Military Families
By: Lauren Scribner
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. § 4025a, grants military spouses portability of their professional licenses. That means when a military spouse moves with his or her servicemember to the servicemember’s assigned duty station in a new state, the spouse’s professional license essentially moves with them.[1] In order to take advantage of this license portability benefit in the new state, the SCRA requires…
Judge Awards $1.7 Million to Defendant in EPA Malicious Prosecution Case
October 12, 2011
Judge Awards $1.7 Million to Defendant in EPA Malicious Prosecution Case
By: Ifrah Law
On September 30, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ordered the United States to pay $1.7 million in a malicious prosecution lawsuit to Hubert Vidrine, based on findings that the U.S. government had maliciously prosecuted Vidrine for alleged environmental crimes. This is a rare ruling by a federal court requiring the government to pay money damages for the overzealous actions…
District Judge Orders Much-Reduced Sentence in Fraud Case
October 10, 2011
District Judge Orders Much-Reduced Sentence in Fraud Case
By: Ifrah Law
A federal judge has made a major reversal in the case of Steve Warshak, the Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals founder who was sentenced to 25 years for defrauding customers who bought his “male enhancement” pills, which were advertised in the notorious “Smiling Bob” ad campaign. We have discussed Warshak’s case in a previous blog post. Warshak had been accused of defrauding customers out of $400 million,…
Judge Imposes Draconian Sentences in Medicare Fraud Scheme
October 7, 2011
Judge Imposes Draconian Sentences in Medicare Fraud Scheme
By: Ifrah Law
On Sept. 16, 2011, a federal judge in Miami sentenced Lawrence Duran to 50 years in prison, the longest sentence ever imposed in a Medicare fraud case, for his role in a massive fraud scheme that resulted in more than $205 million in losses. Duran was also ordered to pay $87 million in restitution. Duran was co-owner of American Therapeutic Corporation with Marianella Valera, his…
Appeals Court Limits Scope of ‘Intended Loss’ in Sentencing Guidelines
September 27, 2011
Appeals Court Limits Scope of ‘Intended Loss’ in Sentencing Guidelines
By: Ifrah Law
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit recently considered what type of proof is required for a sentence enhancement based on “intended loss” under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that a loss enhancement applies only to losses the defendant purposely sought to inflict, not losses the defendant merely knew would occur or possible losses the defendant may have contemplated. To most…
No Attorney’s Fee Award for This Type of Prosecutorial Misconduct
September 22, 2011
No Attorney’s Fee Award for This Type of Prosecutorial Misconduct
By: Ifrah Law
The case of United States v. Shaygan recently made the news when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned a district court’s award of $600,000 in attorney’s fees to a defendant who was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct. The misconduct was indeed egregious — including recording conversations between a lawyer and a defense investigator, violating discovery orders, and vexatiously filing a superseding…
