As a federal defendant, I learned the hard way that a proactive approach to managing an indictment and potential federal prison sentence is essential. Inspired by our feature in a New York Times article, this video series is designed to impart that lesson.
Many federal defendants, like myself in the past, rely on hope rather than action, which often leads to harsher federal prison sentences. This series aims to change that mindset.
The article profiles individuals like Hugo Mejia and Stanley Benton, who actively advocated for themselves. They discovered our services through interviews we conducted with Judges Bennett and Judge Bough on YouTube. These interactions with numerous judges have been enlightening and somewhat unsettling, revealing judges’ skepticism towards federal defendants.
After a lawyer presentation in Fort Worth, Texas, a few years ago, a telling interaction with a retired federal judge revealed this cynicism. The judge believed the defendants continued to lie and only showed remorse because they were caught. This emphasizes the importance of documenting and showcasing personal growth and reform to avoid harsh sentences:
Question: What have you done today to memorialize your growth, prioritize victims, and prove why you will never return to another courtroom as a defendant?
Sentencing mitigation is challenging and does require an investment of time and money. I’ve encountered individuals skeptical of sentencing mitigation, thinking everyone is out to profit from their situation. While our team gets compensated for our work, we encourage individuals to undertake these efforts themselves if they’re capable.
Whether you hire our team or not, someone must complete the work.
A common misconception among defendants is that hiring a lawyer eliminates the need for personal sentencing mitigation. This is a flawed approach (assuming you believe what judges have told us on YouTube). Effective sentencing mitigation requires both a strong lawyer and personal advocacy. The New York Times article and our services demonstrate the importance of being the protagonist in your own mitigation story: you must lead!
The New York Times article by Jack Hitt is a valuable resource, following clients like Hugo and Stanley through the entire process. It offers an unbiased perspective on the effectiveness of our approach. Despite the challenges, including facing public skepticism and navigating complex cases like cryptocurrency cases, the right approach to mitigation can lead to better outcomes, as proven and documented in this article that took more than 16 months to research and write.
In conclusion, the message is clear whether you work with our team or go it alone: immediate, proactive mitigation is crucial. This video series and the New York Times article aim to guide you through this process, helping you achieve more freedom and dignity.
Schedule a call here like Hugo and Stanley did to get started.