Any person accused in a drug conspiracy case has three choices. There is no fourth choice.
The first option: fight the charge fiercely, by investigating exhaustively informants (there are always informants), drafting and filing strong pretrial motions to suppress, and then preparing a vigorous defense at trial. Our firm loves to try cases, and to fight for our clients’ rights. In the federal and state courts of North Carolina, the prosecutors know that if a client of Rudolf Widenhouse and Fialko chooses to go to trial, it is going to be a battle.
The second option is the opposite: when the evidence is overwhelming, some clients wish to plead guilty, but are not interested in becoming an informant for the government. For this client, minimizing the sentence without cooperation is the primary focus. Two United States Supreme Court cases, U.S. v. Kimbrough and U.S. v. Gall, have returned great discretion to the sentencing judge, and our firm has had excellent success in achieving reduced sentences by presenting evidence of mitigation, rehabilitation, and remorse.
In the third option, the client cooperates with the prosecution in an effort to gain a significant reduction in sentence. But in order to cooperate effectively, a lawyer must spend many exhaustive hours meeting with the client, drawing out all of the relevant information he has, and making sure the client is prepared to be completely honest if called upon to testify. Otherwise, the client is likely to end up disappointed by the results. Prosecutors know that if one of our clients decides to cooperate, he is going to be complete, honest, and prepared.
