Every Case is a Trial Case
The most important part of our work is understanding and striving to achieve our client’s goals. Sometimes that is a quick resolution of the case. Sometimes it is to fight through trial and even appeal. Our experience has shown that often the best result is not the result that comes most quickly. The best result is always the result of careful planning, hard work, and detailed strategy.
Even for clients who seek to resolve their case without trial, we approach every case as a trial case. We prepare the strategy, investigate the facts, examine and research the evidence the government has in order to advise our clients what all the options are. With hard work, this approach provides us with the advantage to negotiate from a position of strength, to show the government the weaknesses in their case, and often set the stage for pretrial procedures that limit, if not eliminate, the case against our clients.
But ultimately, if we cannot reach an acceptable resolution, trial becomes necessary. This is why we prepare as if every case will go to trial. It is our forte, our area of expertise. It is what we do. It is our motto: “Let the Jury decide.”
Technology: A Tool for Success
Technology is simply a tool that helps us do what we do best: represent our client’s interest zealously in court. Technology is not a replacement for the expertise, experience and skill of trial counsel. Technology allows us to work more efficiently in an age of increasingly sophisticated law enforcement investigation techniques and enables us to present our client’s case to the jury most effectively—whether by attacking the government’s case or presenting our defense.
Use of technology has helped us secure victory in the courtroom. It has enabled us to uncover evidence unseen and undiscovered before. Understanding of technology enables us to eviscerate the “awe” factor that the government and law enforcement count on when trying to sway a jury about the truth of the evidence merely because law enforcement used “high-tech” methods and means of investigating a case.
In United States of America v. Lavender, et al., Mr. Kaloyanides represented a client in a case charging several prison inmates with assault on federal correctional officers and possession of contraband (namely, weapons) in prison. Using a carefully crafted pretrial motion strategy, Mr. Kaloyanides limited the evidence the government could present at trial against our client. Then, using the firm’s extensive computer technology, Mr. Kaloyanides presented to the jury enhanced security video tapes from the prison to destroy the testimony of the government’s witnesses. During jury deliberations, the jury requested to review the very security tapes Mr. Kaloyanides had shown during the trial showing no assault and no contraband. Result: Defendant was acquitted!
In United States v. Avila, et al., Mr. Kaloyanides convinced the court to exclude from trial all expert testimony and physical evidence. With an in-depth understanding of the nuances of the Federal Rules of Evidence, along with thorough knowledge of the science behind analyzing chemical composition of various types of drugs, Mr. Kaloyanides convinced the court that the government’s expert should be precluded from testifying because the “expert” had, in fact, never performed any tests on the drugs at issue. In addition, because of his experience with and knowledge of fingerprint analysis, Mr. Kaloyanides’ cross-examination of the government’s fingerprint expert on the science of fingerprint analysis revealed that the fingerprints at issue did not match.
Other Areas of Our Practice
Title III Wiretap Evidence
In federal criminal investigations, it is common for the government to use electronic surveillance in the form of wiretaps. Title III of the United States Code is the statutory provision that controls and limits how and when the government may employ electronic “eavesdropping” devices to listen to actual conversations, read emails, or intercept text messaging by citizens. With thorough understanding of the requirements and limitations of Title III, our first attack in such cases is to attack the wiretap application itself and suppress the government’s evidence obtained by that application.
CIPA: Confidential Information Practices Act
Not willing to trust the government and the often stated justification that the government cannot disclose information because of “national security”, David Kaloyanides has successfully fought against government refusal to turn over evidence held in secret on the grounds of “national security.” In a case brought by the United States against an informant who was providing information concerning funding of terrorist organizations in the middle-east, Mr. Kaloyanides’ thorough knowledge of the Confidential Information Practices Act enabled him to force the government to disclose classified information that supported the client’s defense at trial.
