I could see that they had three of my clients, all of whom had either been convicted in a jury trial, or pled guilty, and all were cooperating with the United States Attorney. So what did they potentially have:

• The first one was a kingpin who had been arrested in France on other,local, charges, and who had agreed to waive extradition, and pled guilty in a case related to mine. He could testify to my entire Caribbean money laundering pipeline, as he had traveled on a number of Learjet bulk-cash smuggling trips, and could confirm  my registration of vessels for drug smuggling.
  

• The second and third were the captain and first mate, respectively, from the organisation's marijuana smuggling network; I had laundered and hidden their criminal profits, and they had also been on those covert flights. The had also received cash back from me after it was recovered from a cancelled government seizure of their corporate (bearer share) bank accounts that I opened for them.
  

• Also, the US Attorney was planning on poisoning the mind of the jury with evidence of other uncharged crimes that I had committed. On this, they had damaging information from the earlier prosecution of another client organisation. Though I had put together a team that was able to secure acquittals of all defendants, the money laundering operation in that case was mine.
  

• Finally, were there other former clients now doing time in Federal correctional facilities who were planning on testifying about my money laundering operations on their behalf?

As you can see, the probable testimony was overwhelming. All these former clients were looking to do one thing; cooperate with the government, and thereby have a good change of having the prosecutor suggest to the Court that a lesser sentence mght be in order.

In most state courts, the government and defence counsel actually hammer out a plea agreement, which includes an agreed sentence, and the judge, who is periodically elected by the voters, rubber-stamps and approves the deal, in the absence of any unusual or aggravating factor. The mass of state criminal cases mandates this assembly-line method of expediting criminal justice.

However, in Federal Court, where the judge is appointed for life, and thereby has extraordinary Independence and power, plea agreements do not tell the Court what sentence to impose. Rather, a defendant enters a plea to a lesser crime, or only one, or some of the counts originally charged, which does gives him some idea of what his sentence is going to be. Assistant US Attorneys to not deign to suggest a sentence as a matter of policy.

So how does one then obtain a sentence shorter than those enumerated in the US Sentencing Guidelines, now only directory, and no longer mandatory, but still largely followed? By cooperating in a manner that will cause the US attorney to file a recommendation that the Court depart downward from the Guidelines sentence, and file a Motion under the authority of USSG 5k1.1:

• Substantial Assistance to Authorities: Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offence, the Court may depart from the guidelines.

Thus, the rendering of Substantial Assistance is a mitigating sentencing factor. The already-convicted former clients were making use of this provision to obtain sentencing reductions for themselves, by agreeing to testify against me at my trial.

It is beginning to look like I have a poor chance of obtaining a not guilty verdict, with all these witnesses lined up against me, and other damaging evidence certain to be introduced.

NEXT WEEK: Decision time in my case.