DISCLAIMER: These testimonials represent a small sampling of clients the firm has helped. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case.
North Carolina Federal Mail and Wire Fraud Lawyer
An attorney at the Roberts Law Group, PLLC, will defend you if you are accused of mail fraud or wire fraud. While the allegations are serious, the bigger concern is that these charges may lead to more white-collar crime charges, including RICO charges. Mail fraud and wire fraud are broad business crimes and it is typical that they provide evidence for other egregious charges with more significant penalties.
Contact the Roberts Law Group, PLLC, to schedule a free initial consultation with a criminal defense lawyer with years of experience. Our lead federal criminal defense attorney, Patrick Roberts, is a skilled mail and wire fraud lawyer. He has a proven success defending against federal charges. When charged in North Carolina, don't hesitate - call us at 1-866-630-2389 now.
Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer in North Carolina
Mail fraud, or fraud involving the United States Postal Service or other mail carrier, is distinguished from wire fraud.
- Mail fraud: This fraud is any scheme to defraud someone through the channels of the U.S. Postal Service or other mail carrier.
- Wire fraud: Wire fraud is a scheme to defraud someone through electronic communication, such as Internet, television, radio or telemarketing.
You can be charged with mail fraud or wire fraud even if your attempt to defraud was unsuccessful. While mail fraud is a federal charge, you may be charged with wire fraud in North Carolina.
We Get the Court to Listen To You
We have tried many federal cases. We understand the legal complexities with federal cases, such as grand jury indictments, evidence discovery and motion deadlines. The criminal justice system can be overwhelming, especially for first-time mail or wire fraud suspects. We work to ensure that you understand your case and inform you of your rights throughout the life of your case.
To convict you of mail or wire fraud, you had to intend to defraud someone. We fight the prosecutor's showing of intent by challenging their story and their evidence. We will advocate for you in federal or state court. Contact Roberts Law Group, PLLC, to schedule your mail or wire fraud defense consultation with an experienced lawyer. Don't wait and worry - take charge of your future today.
Maryland vs. R.A.
Charge:
1st Degree Murder, Attempted 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder Attempted 2nd Degree Murder, Manslaughter, Second Degree Assault and Felony Handgun Charges
Facing:
Multiple Life Sentences
Result:
Not Guilty
This client allegedly fired shots into a New Years Eve party on January 1st 2006. The shooting resulted in the death of a 21 year old female (who was survived by her twin sister), and the wounding of the deceased's uncle.
Defense focused on:
- The week-long unexplained absence of an important Government witness after the shooting occurred;
- The lack of any witnesses testimony as to the Defendant firing a handgun;
- The inability of the State to produce a weapon;
- And the possibility of another shooter on the scene due to blood splatter evidence outside the home near the spot that the Defendant was standing.
Defendant was found not guilty on the murder charges. The jury was hung as to the manslaughter, assault and handgun charges. The defendant later pled to manslaughter and was given a ten year sentence, suspend all but 5 years.
Maryland vs. E.W.
Charge:
Domestic Violence -2nd Degree Assault (Two Counts), Deadly Weapon with Intent to Injure, Malicious Destruction of Property, and 4th Degree Burglary
Facing:
26 years, 60 days years
Result:
Dismissed
In a case of alleged domestic violence, cross examination of accuser, the government's main witness, cast doubt on the strength of the Government's case. The Judge granted the Defense motion for acquittal at the close of the State's case and dismissed all charges.
Maryland vs. M.W.
Charge:
Attempted Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Two Counts), Drug Possession
Facing:
44 years
Result:
Jury Trial - Not Guilty
Two officers testified at this jury trial. Inconsistencies elicited on the cross examination of the officers established that the Government did not do enough to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
