On Demand Audio

Federal Versus State: Criminal Defense Comparison

(510 reviews)

Produced on September 08, 2017

Taught by
$ 89 Criminal, Litigation, and Public Interest In Stock
Get started now

$299 / year - Access to this Course and 1,500+ Lawline courses


Course Information

Time 1h 1m
Difficulty Intermediate
Topics covered in this course: Criminal Litigation Public Interest

Course Description

The vast majority of criminal trials take place in state courts, which can make trying a federal criminal case seem daunting for many criminal defense attorneys. Added to this is the fact that more than 90% of federal criminal matters are resolved by way of a plea bargain rather than trial. However, the number of federal criminal statutes is increasing every year, and with it, the number of federal criminal defendants. Because of this, it is prudent for criminal defense practitioners to become acquainted with federal criminal trial procedures.

This course, presented by Patrick A. Mullin, Esq., will introduce practitioners to these procedures and familiarize viewers with the various phases of a federal criminal trial, from investigation through sentencing, and highlight some of the main differences between federal criminal trial procedures and various state court trial procedures.

Learning Objectives:

  1. Identify the phases of a federal criminal trial, from investigation through sentencing
  2. Discuss the differences between federal criminal trial procedures and various state court criminal trial procedures
  3. Introduce the skills necessary for defending a federal criminal trial

Credit Information

After completing this course, Lawline will report your attendance information to {{ accredMasterState.state.name }}. Please ensure your license number is filled out in your profile to ensure timely reporting. For more information, see our {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} CLE Requirements page . After completing this course, {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} attorneys self-report their attendance and CLE compliance. For more information on how to report your CLE courses, see our {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} CLE Requirements FAQ .


Patrick Mullin

Patrick A. Mullin Attorney At Law

Patrick A. Mullin is a veteran New York City criminal and tax defense attorney, specializing in complex, high-stakes criminal defense, and federal criminal and civil tax defense. He has a 40 year track record of relentlessly and successfully pursuing justice for the accused. His boutique law firm focuses on criminal and tax law. He has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Fort Lee, NJ, and is admitted to practice in thirty-one federal and state courts. He handles cases across the country and internationally.

Mr. Mullin holds an LLM in Taxation from New York University School of Law, and was honored as a Special Student of Harvard Law School's Graduate Program focusing on International Legal Studies. He began his career as a Law Intern to the Honorable Henry R. Bramwell in the Eastern District of New York (1978), and then served as Senior Law Clerk to the Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise in the United States District of New Jersey (1979-1980).

Mr. Mullin presented oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in Melendez v. United States, a major federal criminal sentencing case. He served for 14 years as a member of the United States Sentencing Commission, Practitioners Advisory Group, (1995 - 2009), and he has consistently been selected for inclusion to Best Lawyers in America, Best Law Firms in America, Super Lawyers, The National Trial Lawyers Association's Top 100 Trial Lawyers, and the National Association of Distinguished Counsel's Top One Percent, among others. He is also a graduate of and served as an instructor at legendary Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyers College, (2001 - 2006).

During the course of his 40-year career, Mr. Mullin has represented federal criminal defendants in countless notable cases, including:

  • Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120 (1996): Presented oral argument before United States Supreme Court where a downward departure from a mandatory minimum sentence was at stake.
  • United States v. Amara S. Conteh, Crim. No.: 06 Cri. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 2007): A New York City jury acquitted on all ten (10) counts a physician who was facing a potential fifty-year (50) term of incarceration as well as deportation from United States for charges of illegally prescribing medicine. This was the first reported decision where the prosecuting unit, the Diversion Unit of Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, suffered defeat on all counts in a major case.
  • United States v. H. Galip Dedekarginoglu, Docket No.: 09 Crim No.:09-717 (SDW) (2009-2011): The government dismissed nolle prosequi six (6) counts of fraud against a Turkish defense contractor facing a forty-six to fifty-seven month sentence under Federal Guidelines, as well as deportation, in exchange for a single-count plea by a corporate entity.
  • United States v. George J. Dilworth, Crim. No 10-730 (DNJ): a federal jury deliberated for less than two hours and then fully acquitted Mr. Dilworth on all tax conspiracy charges after four (4) of his business partners pled guilty to similar charges and testified against him at trial.
  • United States v. Johnson, 15-3960 (3d Cir.): U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a tax preparer’s 48-month sentence for fraud charges and remanded to the district court for resentencing. 
  • United States v. Keith Dozier, 119 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 1996): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the defendant’s 6-12 month sentence on a probation violation based on a constitutional argument, and the defendant ultimately served no jail time for the violation.
  • United States v. Gloria Gillard, 96 F.3d 1435 (3d Cir. 1996): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence after finding that the district court incorrectly applied the sentencing Guidelines, and remanded for resentencing.
  • United States v. Francisco Collazo-Martinez, 975 F.2d 999 (3d Cir. 1992): The U.S. Court of Appeals vacated defendant’s conviction and ten-year (10) mandatory minimum sentence on drug conspiracy charges and remanded for a new trial.
  • United States v. Guitierrez, (D.N.J.): The government dismissed nolle prosequi all charges against a Catholic priest who was wrongfully accused of serious drug trafficking charges.
  • United States v. Rosa Lordes Osario, (3d Cir. 1994): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated defendant’s conviction for currency structuring, based on an erroneous jury instruction.
  • Targets of federal criminal investigations (not identified here) who were ultimately exonerated of any criminal liability.


Maria de las Nieves R.

Great presentation.

Katherine L.

I am very pleased with this CLE. Exactly what I was looking for!

Thomas E. K.

Treads over a lot of material. Good overall discussion and slide show.

Michael C.

Good info and slides

Arie E.

Helpful. Thanks.

william n.

Excellent speaker

Mark M.

Presenter's experience enabled him to speak to the listeners in an understandable way with practical anecdotes.

Rufus W.

Well organized - nice to have comparison between state and federal to get some idea of complexity

Khristine M.

The written materials will be an excellent resource. The lecture was informative and well organized. My favorite part was the advocacy and opinions. Too many attorneys (especially baby attorneys) don't grasp the reality of the practical aspects of criminal proceedings. I think the specific example of the man who lost his home even though he didn't do anything criminal (and that things like that are not uncommon) is extremely important for us to keep in mind.

Edward P.

This course provided information on some otherwise obscure matters of law.

James B.

Excellent, thorough presentation.

Mattie A.


Dennis B.

solid presentation

Adam S.

Materials were particularly good.

In C.

Best CLE this year.

Andrew B.

Interesting information and well done and thought out presentation.

Michael G.

Enjoyed that. Have practiced in Texas and California.

R. Christopher R.

Excellent seminar

Load More