Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group. If you’re confronting federal criminal charges in Los Angeles, understand that the Central District of California prosecutes more federal criminal cases than nearly any other district in the nation. CDCA handles immigration prosecutions, drug trafficking cases involving cartels operating across the Mexican border, cybercrime prosecutions targeting Silicon Beach tech fraud, and complex white-collar cases involving entertainment industry financing and cryptocurrency schemes. Federal prosecution in Los Angeles isn’t simply more aggressive than state prosecution – it’s qualitatively different, with resources, sophistication, and mandatory minimum sentences that dwarf what California state courts impose.

Spodek Law Group is a second-generation law firm managed by Todd Spodek, with over 40 years of combined experience defending federal criminal cases nationwide. We handle prosecutions in CDCA with the understanding that Los Angeles federal courts operate under unique enforcement priorities that reflect California’s position as a border state, technology hub, and entertainment capital. When federal prosecutors in downtown LA charge you with wire fraud, drug conspiracy, or immigration offenses, constitutional protections mean nothing without attorneys who understand how CDCA prosecutes cases and where government evidence is vulnerable to constitutional challenges.

CDCA’s Enforcement Priorities Reflect Political and Geographic Realities

In 2025, CDCA announced multiple task forces targeting specific categories of fraud: homelessness fraud investigating misuse of federal and state funds allocated for homelessness programs, wildfire fraud targeting schemes that exploit disaster victims, and sanctuary city enforcement prosecuting illegal reentry after deportation. These priorities shift with administrations, but geographic constants persist – CDCA always prosecutes substantial drug trafficking tied to Mexican cartels, immigration offenses involving human smuggling, and financial crimes exploiting California’s position as the world’s fifth-largest economy.

Understanding current priorities matters because they dictate where prosecutorial resources flow and how aggressively cases are charged. If your conduct intersects with task force priorities – you applied for disaster relief that prosecutors claim was fraudulent, you’re charged with illegal reentry following removal, you’re accused of diverting homelessness program funds – expect prosecution teams with dedicated investigators, substantial budgets, and mandates to secure convictions. Defense in these cases requires understanding that prosecutors view your case not as an individual prosecution but as part of broader enforcement initiatives where making examples of defendants serves deterrent purposes.

Federal Prosecution Overwhelms State-Level Defense Strategies

California defense attorneys accustomed to state court discover that federal prosecution operates entirely differently. CDCA prosecutors work with FBI, DEA, IRS-CI, HSI, Secret Service, and ATF task forces that conduct multi-year investigations before filing charges. By the time you’re indicted, prosecutors typically have wiretap evidence, cooperating co-defendants, financial records subpoenaed from banks and cryptocurrency exchanges, and testimony from undercover agents. State court defendants often negotiate favorable plea agreements because prosecutors lack resources to take marginal cases to trial. Federal prosecutors have resources to try every case – and mandatory minimums ensure that trial convictions result in sentences dramatically harsher than plea offers.

That dynamic transfers power from judges to prosecutors. In state court, judges impose sentences based on individualized assessments of defendants and offenses. In federal court, mandatory minimums eliminate judicial discretion: if you’re convicted of drug trafficking involving certain quantities, firearms offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), or immigration crimes after certain prior removals, judges must impose statutory minimum sentences regardless of mitigating circumstances. The only question becomes whether prosecutors charge offenses carrying mandatory minimums – a decision they make based on how cooperative you are, how strong their evidence is, and what strategic purposes your prosecution serves.

Constitutional Challenges Federal Prosecutors Prefer to Ignore

Fourth Amendment violations pervade federal investigations. Agents conduct searches based on warrants obtained through affidavits containing stale information, uncorroborated tips from confidential informants, or outright misrepresentations. They search electronic devices at borders without warrants, claiming customs authority eliminates Fourth Amendment protections. They prolong traffic stops to conduct dog sniffs, then search vehicles when dogs alert – even though dog alerts have proven unreliable in controlled studies. Suppressing evidence requires demonstrating that constitutional violations were so egregious that good faith exceptions don’t apply.

Good faith doctrine eviscerates Fourth Amendment protections by rewarding police incompetence. If agents violate your rights but didn’t know they were violating your rights – because they misunderstood case law, relied on defective warrants, or exceeded their authority unknowingly – courts allow the evidence. That’s a doctrine that transforms constitutional protections into technical hurdles rather than meaningful limitations on government power. But good faith has limits: when agents lie in warrant applications, when they conduct searches that no reasonable officer would believe were lawful, when they ignore clearly established precedent, courts still suppress evidence.

We’ve successfully suppressed evidence in CDCA cases where prosecutors claimed searches were lawful – forcing dismissals or favorable pleas once their evidence vanished. But suppression requires meticulous analysis of search warrant affidavits, comparison with actual facts, demonstration that agents omitted material information or included false statements, and willingness to litigate motions that some attorneys consider futile because CDCA judges have reputations for denying suppression motions. Those reputations aren’t entirely accurate – judges suppress evidence when constitutional violations are clear and defense counsel presents compelling arguments.

Speedy Trial Act Violations Happen More Than Defense Attorneys Notice

The Speedy Trial Act requires trial within 70 days of indictment or initial appearance. Prosecutors routinely request continuances; judges grant them. But the Act contains strict rules about what delays are excludable and what count toward the 70-day clock. When prosecutors seek continuances without demonstrating ends-of-justice reasons, when they claim complexity but cases aren’t actually complex, when judges grant continuances without making specific findings required by statute – dismissal with prejudice becomes available.

Most defense attorneys don’t track speedy trial calculations carefully because they assume judges and prosecutors are following the law. That assumption is often wrong. We’ve dismissed federal indictments in CDCA based on speedy trial violations where prosecutors claimed the continuances were proper and judges had granted them without objection. Appellate courts don’t defer to district court speedy trial rulings when statutory requirements weren’t met – meaning careful tracking creates dismissal opportunities even in cases where trial judges believed they were following the Act.

Los Angeles-Specific Challenges Create Defense Opportunities

CDCA’s geographic jurisdiction spans seven counties – Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo. That creates venue issues when prosecutors charge you in downtown LA for conduct that occurred in San Bernardino or Santa Barbara. Venue challenges require proving that prosecution should occur where the offense was committed rather than where prosecutors prefer to try cases. While venue challenges rarely succeed, they force prosecutors to prove venue elements and sometimes result in transfers to divisions where juries are more favorable to defendants.

Jury composition in CDCA varies dramatically by division. Downtown LA juries differ from Orange County juries, which differ from Riverside juries. Prosecutors know this – that’s why they charge cases in divisions they believe favor conviction. Defense requires understanding jury demographics, typical verdict patterns, and how to request transfers when prosecution venue choices were strategic rather than based on where offenses actually occurred.

Entertainment Industry and Cryptocurrency Cases Involve Complex Financial Evidence

Los Angeles prosecutions frequently involve entertainment financing fraud, cryptocurrency scams, Ponzi schemes targeting investors, and securities fraud cases where evidence consists of thousands of emails, financial transactions across multiple accounts, and expert testimony about industry practices. These cases require attorneys who can cross-examine forensic accountants, challenge government experts’ assumptions, and present complex financial information to juries in comprehensible ways.

When Todd Spodek defended Anna Delvey, the case involved allegations of bank fraud and theft of services where prosecution evidence consisted largely of financial records and witness testimony about representations she allegedly made. Defense required demonstrating that sophisticated institutions made their own decisions, that alleged victims overstated losses, and that conduct fell short of criminal fraud even if it involved aggressive claims. Similar principles apply to Los Angeles white-collar prosecutions: juries are skeptical of defendants accused of financial crimes, but they’re also skeptical of alleged victims who claim they were defrauded despite conducting minimal due diligence.

Immigration Prosecutions in CDCA Target Repeat Removals

CDCA prosecutes more immigration offenses than nearly any federal district. Illegal reentry after removal – 8 U.S.C. § 1326 – carries sentences up to 20 years for defendants with prior aggravated felony convictions. Prosecutors charge these cases aggressively, particularly when defendants have criminal histories. But § 1326 contains constitutional vulnerabilities: if your original removal proceeding violated due process, you can collaterally attack the removal order’s validity, which eliminates an essential element of the reentry offense.

Collateral attacks require demonstrating that you didn’t receive notice of removal proceedings, that you were denied the opportunity to present defenses, or that removal orders were based on legal errors. Immigration judges make mistakes frequently – failing to advise defendants of relief available, misconstruing statutes, denying continuances that should have been granted. When those errors infected your removal proceeding, § 1326 prosecutions become defensible even when reentry itself is undisputed.

What Spodek Law Group Brings to Federal Defense in California

We operate nationwide, handling federal cases in CDCA and districts across the country through our digital portal and relationships with local counsel. We’re based in New York because SDNY and EDNY set standards for federal prosecution – if you can defend there, you can defend anywhere. But we defend in California with understanding that CDCA prosecution reflects unique priorities: border enforcement, cartel drug trafficking, tech fraud, entertainment industry schemes, and wildfire/disaster fraud.

Our experience includes wire fraud, securities fraud, RICO, drug trafficking, money laundering, tax evasion, bank fraud, investment fraud, government program fraud, and immigration offenses. We’ve represented clients where prosecutors claimed cases were unwinnable – Anna Delvey when media had convicted her before trial, the Ghislaine Maxwell juror in misconduct proceedings that drew national attention, defendants in RICO cases where co-conspirators cooperated. Constitutional protections mean nothing unless someone fights to enforce them – and federal judges don’t enforce them sua sponte. Defense counsel must identify violations, litigate motions, challenge evidence, and force prosecutors to prove every element beyond reasonable doubt.

What to Do If You’re Under Federal Investigation in Los Angeles

Don’t speak to FBI, DEA, IRS-CI, or any federal agents without counsel present. Agents conduct “knock and talk” interviews claiming they just want your side of the story. They’re building criminal cases. Anything you say will be summarized in reports that prosecutors use at trial to impeach you if you testify. Invoke your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Say nothing until you’ve consulted counsel who knows federal criminal law and CDCA prosecution patterns.

Don’t consent to searches. If agents ask to search your home, car, phone, or computers, refuse. They’ll search anyway if they have warrants, but your refusal preserves Fourth Amendment challenges. Consent eliminates constitutional protections entirely – courts won’t suppress evidence from consensual searches no matter how invasive. Make them get warrants. Make them establish probable cause to judges. Force them to follow constitutional procedures.

Don’t contact witnesses or co-defendants. Obstruction of justice and witness tampering charges add years to sentences and give prosecutors leverage to coerce pleas. If you need to communicate, do it through counsel – attorney-client communications are privileged; your direct communications with witnesses become evidence.

Call Spodek Law Group immediately. We’re available 24/7 to defend federal criminal cases in Los Angeles and nationwide. Federal prosecution in CDCA requires attorneys who understand mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines, constitutional defenses, and how to challenge evidence that prosecutors consider overwhelming. That’s what we do – and we’ve done it successfully for over 40 years. Your first call should be to us.