Federal criminal charges in Philadelphia differ fundamentally from state charges in jurisdiction, investigation procedures, court systems, sentencing guidelines, and potential penalties. Federal cases are prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for crimes violating federal law—typically involving interstate commerce, federal property, federal agencies, or multi-state criminal activity. State charges are prosecuted by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office in Pennsylvania state courts (Municipal Court and Court of Common Pleas) for violations of Pennsylvania criminal law. Federal cases generally involve more severe penalties, mandatory minimum sentences, federal sentencing guidelines, and longer investigations by agencies like FBI, DEA, ATF, and IRS, while state cases follow Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines with more judicial discretion. DiDonato & Burke Law Firm’s former prosecutors Thomas F. Burke and Dawn DiDonato-Burke have extensive experience in both federal and state courts, using their insider knowledge of prosecution strategies in both systems to provide comprehensive defense for clients facing charges in either jurisdiction throughout Philadelphia and Eastern Pennsylvania.
Table of Contents
- What Determines Federal vs State Jurisdiction?
- Key Differences in Investigation and Charging
- Federal vs State Court Systems in Philadelphia
- Sentencing: Federal Guidelines vs Pennsylvania Law
- Common Federal Crimes in Philadelphia
- Defense Strategy Differences: Federal vs State
- Philadelphia Legal Considerations for Both Systems
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Expert Tips from Former Prosecutors
- Conclusion
What Determines Federal vs State Jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction determination—whether crimes are prosecuted federally or at the state level—depends on multiple factors including which laws were violated, where crimes occurred, who was victimized, and prosecutorial discretion when overlapping jurisdiction exists.
Federal Jurisdiction Triggers Federal criminal jurisdiction in Philadelphia typically arises when crimes violate federal statutes rather than (or in addition to) state laws, occur on federal property including military bases, federal buildings, or national parks, involve interstate commerce such as drugs or weapons transported across state lines, affect federal agencies or programs including tax fraud, mail fraud, or Social Security fraud, cross state boundaries through multi-state criminal enterprises or conspiracies, involve federal officials as victims or perpetrators, or implicate federal interests including terrorism, civil rights violations, or immigration offenses.
The U.S. Constitution grants federal government limited enumerated powers, meaning federal criminal jurisdiction requires constitutional basis—typically the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, or specific constitutional provisions addressing federal interests.
Former Philadelphia prosecutor Thomas F. Burke explains that federal jurisdiction has expanded significantly over decades through broad interpretation of interstate commerce, allowing federal prosecution of crimes that historically were purely state matters. This expansion means many Philadelphia crimes potentially fall under both federal and state jurisdiction.
State Jurisdiction in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania state jurisdiction covers crimes violating Pennsylvania criminal code (Title 18) that occur within state borders and don’t implicate exclusive federal interests. This includes traditional street crimes like murder, assault, robbery, burglary, theft, drug possession, and most DUI offenses committed on Pennsylvania roads and highways.
State jurisdiction is broader and more general than federal jurisdiction—if conduct violates Pennsylvania criminal law and doesn’t require federal prosecution, state courts have jurisdiction. Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office prosecutes thousands of cases annually in state court, representing the vast majority of criminal prosecutions in the city.
Concurrent Jurisdiction and Prosecutorial Discretion Many Philadelphia crimes fall under both federal and state jurisdiction, creating concurrent jurisdiction where either system could prosecute. Examples include drug trafficking (violates both Pennsylvania and federal drug laws), firearms offenses (Pennsylvania criminal code and federal gun laws), fraud schemes (Pennsylvania theft laws and federal fraud statutes), and violent crimes involving drugs or guns (state murder/assault charges and federal firearm/drug charges).
When concurrent jurisdiction exists, prosecutors exercise discretion in determining which system prosecutes. Factors influencing these decisions include crime severity (more serious cases often go federal), defendant criminal history (federal mandatory minimums target repeat offenders), investigative agency involvement (FBI/DEA investigations typically result in federal charges), resource availability (federal prosecutors have more resources for complex cases), and jurisdictional priorities (federal focus on large-scale operations, state focus on street-level crime).
Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Some crimes can only be prosecuted federally including immigration violations, federal tax crimes, crimes on federal property, counterfeiting and federal currency offenses, federal benefits fraud, and terrorism charges under federal statutes.
Exclusive State Jurisdiction Similarly, some offenses remain exclusively state matters including DUI (unless on federal property), most traffic violations, state tax crimes, and violations of Pennsylvania-specific criminal statutes without federal equivalents.
Dawn DiDonato-Burke’s prosecution experience provides insight into how jurisdictional decisions are made. Understanding these factors helps defendants anticipate whether cases will proceed federally or in state court, affecting defense strategy from investigation onset.
Transfer Between Systems Sometimes cases initially charged in state court are “adopted” by federal prosecutors who bring federal charges, requiring defendants to defend in both systems simultaneously. Conversely, federal prosecutors may decline cases that state prosecutors then pursue. Understanding how and why these transfers occur helps develop comprehensive defense strategies.
Key Differences in Investigation and Charging
Federal and state criminal investigations and charging processes differ fundamentally in duration, resources, investigative techniques, and procedural requirements, significantly affecting defense strategies and case outcomes.
Investigation Length and Complexity Federal investigations in Philadelphia typically last months or years before charges are filed, involving extensive surveillance, wiretaps, financial record analysis, and multi-agency coordination. Federal agencies including FBI, DEA, ATF, IRS, Secret Service, and Homeland Security Investigations have substantial resources for long-term investigations targeting organized criminal enterprises, large-scale drug trafficking, complex fraud schemes, and multi-defendant conspiracies.
State investigations by Philadelphia Police Department and Pennsylvania State Police typically proceed more quickly, with charges filed days or weeks after crimes occur for street-level offenses. While some complex state cases involve extended investigations, most Philadelphia state prosecutions result from arrests during or shortly after crimes.
Former prosecutor Thomas F. Burke notes that federal investigation duration means defendants often don’t know they’re under investigation until charged, while state cases typically involve immediate arrests. This timing difference significantly affects when defense counsel can intervene and what investigative stages can be influenced.
Grand Jury Proceedings Federal criminal charges for felonies require grand jury indictments under the Fifth Amendment. Federal grand juries in Philadelphia meet regularly, hearing evidence presented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys without defense participation. Grand jury proceedings are secret, and defendants have no right to testify or present evidence unless invited.
Federal grand juries have broad investigative powers including subpoenaing witnesses, compelling testimony under immunity grants, and obtaining documents and records. Grand jury investigations can continue for months or years, with prosecutors presenting evidence incrementally as investigations develop.
Pennsylvania uses preliminary hearings rather than grand juries for most cases. Philadelphia Municipal Court conducts preliminary hearings where prosecutors must establish probable cause that crimes occurred and defendants committed them. Unlike federal grand juries, preliminary hearings are adversarial with defense counsel present, cross-examining witnesses and challenging evidence.
However, Pennsylvania does use investigating grand juries for complex cases, particularly organized crime, corruption, and multi-defendant conspiracies. These function similarly to federal grand juries but are less common than preliminary hearings.
Charging Documents and Procedures Federal charges are initiated through criminal complaints (for arrests and initial appearances) followed by grand jury indictments (formal charges). Federal indictments can be incredibly detailed, running dozens of pages with extensive factual allegations, or relatively brief, stating charges in statutory language.
Pennsylvania state charges begin with criminal complaints filed by police or private citizens, followed by preliminary hearings at Municipal Court. If probable cause is established, cases are held for court and formally charged through informations filed in Court of Common Pleas.
Investigative Techniques and Resources Federal investigations utilize sophisticated techniques including court-authorized wiretaps on phones and electronic communications, pen registers and trap-and-trace devices recording phone numbers, GPS tracking and physical surveillance, undercover operations and confidential informants, search warrants for emails, social media, and electronic data, financial record analysis through subpoenas to banks and businesses, and cooperating defendants providing testimony against co-defendants.
Federal agencies have budgets, technology, and expertise that state and local police typically lack. This resource disparity means federal investigations often uncover evidence that state investigations might miss.
Philadelphia Police Department and Pennsylvania State Police use similar techniques but with fewer resources and less sophisticated technology. State investigations rely more heavily on witness statements, physical evidence from crime scenes, and defendant statements than the extensive electronic surveillance common in federal cases.
Cooperation and Plea Negotiation Timing Federal prosecutors often encourage early cooperation, offering substantial assistance departures under Federal Sentencing Guidelines for defendants who provide useful information about criminal organizations. Federal cooperation typically occurs before trial, with defendants pleading guilty and agreeing to testify against co-defendants.
State prosecutors also use cooperation but typically with less formal structures and fewer sentencing benefits. Pennsylvania doesn’t have equivalent substantial assistance provisions, though prosecutors can recommend reduced sentences for cooperation.
Dawn DiDonato-Burke’s prosecution experience revealed that federal cooperation decisions occur earlier in cases because federal mandatory minimums create strong incentives for defendants to cooperate quickly. State cooperation often develops later, sometimes during trial preparation.
Target Letters and Pre-Indictment Contact Federal prosecutors sometimes send target letters informing individuals they’re investigation subjects, inviting them to present information to grand juries or proffer information to prosecutors. These letters allow limited defense participation before charges are filed.
State prosecutions rarely provide similar pre-charge notice. Philadelphia defendants typically first learn of charges through arrest or preliminary hearing notices.
Understanding investigation and charging differences helps defense counsel develop appropriate strategies for each system, intervening at optimal stages to protect clients’ interests.
Federal vs State Court Systems in Philadelphia
Federal and Pennsylvania state court systems operate under different rules, procedures, and cultures, significantly affecting how cases proceed and outcomes are achieved.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Federal criminal cases in Philadelphia are prosecuted in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, located in the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse at 601 Market Street. The Eastern District covers Philadelphia and surrounding counties including Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, Chester, Berks, Lancaster, and others in Eastern Pennsylvania.
Federal district courts are Article III courts with life-tenured judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Eastern District has approximately 20 active judges and several senior judges handling criminal and civil cases.
Federal criminal procedure follows Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, and local rules specific to the Eastern District. These rules differ substantially from Pennsylvania state rules in discovery requirements, motion practice, trial procedures, and sentencing.
Philadelphia State Court System Pennsylvania state criminal cases proceed through Philadelphia Municipal Court (preliminary hearings and minor offenses) and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (trials for felonies and serious misdemeanors). These courts are located at the Criminal Justice Center at 1301 Filbert Street.
Pennsylvania state courts follow Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. State court judges are elected rather than appointed, serving ten-year terms with retention elections.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has numerous judges handling criminal cases in specialized courtrooms, with some judges assigned to specific case types (homicide, gun court, drug court) while others handle general criminal dockets.
Discovery Differences Federal discovery is broader than Pennsylvania state discovery, with prosecutors required to disclose all material and potentially exculpatory evidence, witness statements and FBI 302 reports, prior criminal history of government witnesses, and information about cooperating witnesses and their benefits.
Federal Rule 16 requires prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to defendants, while Brady v. Maryland requires disclosure of all material exculpatory evidence. Federal prosecutors typically provide substantial discovery including surveillance videos, wiretap recordings, financial records, and extensive documentation.
Pennsylvania discovery is more limited, with prosecutors required to disclose witness lists and evidence they intend to use at trial but not necessarily all evidence gathered during investigations. Pennsylvania has narrower Brady obligations, though recent reforms have expanded discovery requirements.
Former prosecutor Thomas F. Burke notes that federal discovery advantages allow defense counsel to prepare more thoroughly, understanding prosecution cases comprehensively before trial. State discovery limitations sometimes result in trial surprises that federal rules prevent.
Pre-Trial Motion Practice Federal courts have extensive pre-trial motion practice including suppression motions challenging searches, seizures, and statements, motions to dismiss indictments for legal insufficiency, severance motions separating co-defendants for separate trials, and Daubert motions challenging expert witness qualifications and methodology.
Federal judges typically hold evidentiary hearings on suppression motions, thoroughly examining constitutional issues. Written motion practice is more extensive in federal court, with detailed memoranda of law supporting positions.
Pennsylvania state courts also allow motion practice but typically with less extensive briefing and fewer evidentiary hearings. Philadelphia judges often rule on suppression motions based on written submissions rather than full hearings, though evidentiary hearings occur in significant cases.
Trial Procedures Federal criminal trials follow Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure with strict evidentiary standards, formal courtroom procedures, and extensive jury instructions. Federal trials typically last longer than state trials for comparable charges due to more evidence and witnesses.
Pennsylvania state trials are generally less formal than federal trials, with more relaxed evidentiary standards in some respects and shorter trial durations. Philadelphia juries hear multiple cases weekly, while federal juries may deliberate on single cases for extended periods.
Jury Composition Federal juries are drawn from the entire Eastern District of Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia and surrounding suburban counties. This creates more diverse jury pools than Philadelphia-only state juries, often including more affluent suburban residents alongside urban Philadelphia residents.
Pennsylvania state juries in Philadelphia criminal cases are drawn exclusively from Philadelphia County, creating different demographic compositions that can affect case outcomes. Understanding jury pool differences helps inform trial strategy and venue considerations.
Sentencing Procedures Federal sentencing involves extensive pre-sentence investigation reports prepared by U.S. Probation Office, sentencing guidelines calculations requiring mathematical computations, sentencing hearings with evidence presentation and witness testimony, and appellate review of sentencing decisions.
Pennsylvania state sentencing uses Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines that are advisory rather than mandatory, pre-sentence investigation reports from adult probation, and sentencing hearings typically shorter than federal proceedings.
Dawn DiDonato-Burke’s experience in both systems helps navigate procedural differences and develop strategies appropriate for each court system’s unique characteristics.
Sentencing: Federal Guidelines vs Pennsylvania Law
Federal and Pennsylvania state sentencing systems differ dramatically in structure, severity, mandatory minimums, and judicial discretion, making sentencing outcomes highly dependent on which system prosecutes cases.
Federal Sentencing Guidelines Federal sentencing follows U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, complex mathematical formulas calculating recommended sentence ranges based on offense levels (determined by crime type, loss amounts, drug quantities, or other factors), criminal history categories (based on prior convictions and sentences), and adjustments for specific offense characteristics (role in offense, acceptance of responsibility, obstruction of justice).
Guidelines produce sentencing ranges in months (e.g., 63-78 months, 151-188 months) that judges must calculate and consider, though guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory after United States v. Booker. Federal judges can vary from guidelines but must adequately explain variances.
Former prosecutor Thomas F. Burke explains that federal guidelines typically produce longer sentences than Pennsylvania guidelines for comparable offenses. Federal emphasis on crime severity and criminal history creates substantial sentences even for first-time offenders in serious cases.
Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences Federal law contains numerous mandatory minimum sentences that judges must impose regardless of guideline calculations or mitigating circumstances. Common mandatory minimums include drug trafficking (5 years for specified quantities, 10 years for larger amounts, 20 years for very large amounts), firearms offenses (5 years for using guns during crimes, 7 years for brandishing, 10 years for discharging, 25 years for causing death), child pornography (5-15 year minimums depending on offense specifics), and career offender provisions (enhanced sentences for defendants with specified prior convictions).
Mandatory minimums can only be avoided through substantial assistance departures (cooperation agreements) or safety valve provisions (for first-time drug offenders meeting specific criteria). These restrictions severely limit judicial discretion in many federal cases.
Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines Pennsylvania uses advisory sentencing guidelines that are less rigid than federal guidelines. Pennsylvania guidelines consider offense gravity scores (based on crime severity) and prior record scores (based on criminal history) to produce standard range, aggravated range, and mitigated range recommendations measured in months.
Pennsylvania judges have more discretion to depart from guidelines than federal judges had before Booker. While departures require explanation, Pennsylvania appellate courts affirm sentences outside guidelines ranges more readily than federal appellate courts.
Pennsylvania Mandatory Minimum Sentences Pennsylvania has fewer mandatory minimums than federal law, but significant minimums exist for certain offenses including gun crimes (5 years for using firearms during crimes), drug trafficking near schools (2-4 years depending on drug type), repeat DUI offenses (mandatory days to months depending on tier and offense number), and certain sex offenses (mandatory minimums based on victim age and offense type).
Pennsylvania mandatory minimums can sometimes be challenged or avoided through pre-trial motions, while federal minimums typically cannot be challenged absent constitutional violations.
Sentence Length Comparisons Federal sentences are typically substantially longer than Pennsylvania sentences for comparable conduct. Examples include drug trafficking (federal: 5-20+ year mandatory minimums; Pennsylvania: typically 2-5 years standard range), firearms offenses (federal: 5-10 year consecutive minimums; Pennsylvania: 5 year minimum often concurrent), fraud (federal: often years based on loss amount; Pennsylvania: typically months to low years), and white-collar crimes (federal: lengthy guidelines sentences; Pennsylvania: often probation or minimal incarceration).
Dawn DiDonato-Burke’s prosecution experience revealed that defendants facing concurrent jurisdiction often strongly prefer state prosecution due to significantly lower potential sentences.
Supervised Release vs Probation Federal sentences include supervised release periods (typically 3-5 years) that follow imprisonment, essentially creating additional prison time exposure for violations. Federal supervised release has stricter requirements and consequences than Pennsylvania probation.
Pennsylvania probation or parole follows state sentences, but violations typically result in less severe consequences than federal supervised release violations.
Cooperation and Substantial Assistance Federal system strongly incentivizes cooperation through substantial assistance departures under U.S.S.G. §5K1.1 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). Defendants providing substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting others can receive sentences below mandatory minimums and guideline ranges.
Federal cooperation is formalized and common, with many defendants pleading guilty early to secure cooperation agreements before co-defendants cooperate. This creates “race to cooperate” dynamics in multi-defendant cases.
Pennsylvania cooperation exists but is less formalized and provides smaller sentencing benefits. Pennsylvania prosecutors recommend reduced sentences for cooperation but lack federal substantial assistance provision equivalents.
Acceptance of Responsibility Federal guidelines provide 2-3 level reductions (significant sentence decreases) for defendants accepting responsibility by pleading guilty early and demonstrating sincere remorse. This encourages federal guilty pleas.
Pennsylvania has no formal acceptance of responsibility provision, though judges may consider guilty pleas in exercising sentencing discretion.
Fines and Restitution Federal sentences often include substantial fines based on guideline calculations and statutory maximums, plus restitution for victim losses. Federal restitution enforcement is aggressive with criminal consequences for violations.
Pennsylvania also orders restitution and fines but typically in lower amounts with less aggressive enforcement.
Understanding sentencing system differences is crucial for evaluating plea offers, advising clients about trial risks, and developing sentencing advocacy strategies appropriate for each system.
Common Federal Crimes in Philadelphia
Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia’s Eastern District pursue specific crime categories that commonly result in federal rather than state charges, reflecting federal law enforcement priorities and jurisdiction.
Drug Trafficking Organizations Federal prosecutors target large-scale drug trafficking organizations operating across state lines or involving substantial quantities. Common charges include conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. § 846), distribution and possession with intent to distribute narcotics, operating continuing criminal enterprises (drug kingpin charges), and using firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes.
Federal drug cases typically involve multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, or methamphetamine, though smaller amounts can be charged federally when defendants have significant criminal histories or cases involve interstate conduct.
Former prosecutor Thomas F. Burke notes that federal drug cases differ markedly from Philadelphia state drug cases—federal prosecutors focus on organizational leadership and multi-defendant conspiracies while Philadelphia DA’s office prosecutes street-level dealers and users.
Firearms Offenses Federal firearms prosecutions in Philadelphia target prohibited persons possessing guns (felons, domestic violence convicts, drug users), using or carrying firearms during drug trafficking or violent crimes, trafficking in firearms across state lines, possessing firearms with obliterated serial numbers, and straw purchasing (buying guns for prohibited persons).
Common federal gun charges include felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), which carries up to 10 years imprisonment and 15-year mandatory minimums for defendants with three prior violent felony or serious drug offense convictions under Armed Career Criminal Act.
White-Collar Crimes and Fraud Federal prosecutors extensively pursue white-collar crimes including wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1344), healthcare fraud and Medicare/Medicaid fraud, tax evasion and filing false tax returns, securities fraud and investment schemes, identity theft and aggravated identity theft, public corruption and bribery of government officials, and money laundering and structuring violations.
White-collar federal prosecutions in Philadelphia often involve extensive financial investigations, cooperating witnesses, and complex documentary evidence. Sentences are driven by loss amounts under federal guidelines, sometimes resulting in lengthy imprisonment for non-violent offenses.
Cybercrime and Computer Offenses Federal jurisdiction covers cybercrimes including computer fraud and abuse, identity theft through computer systems, child pornography production, distribution, and possession, cyberstalking and online threats, and hacking and unauthorized computer access.
Philadelphia’s tech sector and university presence create opportunities for federal cybercrime prosecutions, particularly child pornography cases that frequently result in federal charges and substantial sentences.
Immigration Offenses Federal immigration crimes prosecuted in Philadelphia include illegal reentry after deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1326), harboring or transporting illegal aliens, immigration document fraud, and marriage fraud for immigration benefits.
Illegal reentry carries mandatory minimum sentences for defendants with prior aggravated felony convictions, sometimes resulting in years of federal imprisonment for immigration violations.
Public Corruption Federal prosecutors aggressively pursue public corruption including bribery of public officials (state and local), Hobbs Act robberies and extortion by public officials, federal program fraud and embezzlement, honest services fraud, and civil rights violations under color of law (42 U.S.C. § 1983 criminal provisions).
Philadelphia has seen numerous federal public corruption prosecutions targeting city officials, police officers, and elected representatives.
Civil Rights Crimes Federal hate crimes, police misconduct prosecutions, housing discrimination, and interference with federally protected activities are prosecuted when state charges are insufficient or state prosecution is inadequate.
Dawn DiDonato-Burke notes that federal civil rights prosecutions sometimes follow state prosecutions that result in acquittals or inadequate sentences, providing federal “backup” for cases with significant public interest.
Organized Crime and RICO Federal prosecutors use Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for prosecuting organized crime, gangs engaged in patterns of racketeering activity, corrupt businesses or labor unions, and complex fraud schemes.
RICO charges carry 20-year maximum sentences and allow prosecution of entire criminal enterprises rather than isolated offenses.
Child Exploitation Federal charges for child pornography, child sex trafficking, enticement of minors, and travel for purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with minors are aggressively prosecuted with mandatory minimum sentences ranging from 5-15 years.
Understanding common federal charges helps defendants and counsel anticipate whether cases will proceed federally and develop appropriate defense strategies for federal prosecution.
Defense Strategy Differences: Federal vs State
Defending federal criminal charges in Philadelphia requires substantially different strategies than defending Pennsylvania state charges due to procedural differences, resource disparities, sentencing consequences, and prosecution approaches.
Investigation Stage Defense Federal cases often allow defense intervention during investigations before charges are filed. When defendants learn they’re under investigation through target letters, attorney contact, or other means, experienced counsel can proffer information to prosecutors, present evidence suggesting innocence or reduced culpability, negotiate pre-indictment plea agreements, or convince prosecutors not to bring charges.
State cases rarely provide similar pre-charge defense opportunities. Philadelphia arrests typically occur before defense involvement, limiting pre-charge advocacy to rare situations where defendants learn of investigations before arrest.
Former prosecutor Thomas F. Burke emphasizes that federal investigation stage defense can be incredibly valuable, sometimes preventing charges entirely or substantially reducing charge severity before formal prosecution begins.
Cooperation Decisions Federal cases require early cooperation decisions due to substantial assistance provisions and “race to cooperate” dynamics in multi-defendant cases. Defense counsel must quickly assess cooperation viability, evaluate whether clients have valuable information, understand risks of cooperation including retaliation from co-defendants, and negotiate favorable cooperation agreements before other defendants cooperate.
Federal cooperation typically requires complete truthfulness, ongoing assistance, and willingness to testify. Defendants who lie during cooperation lose all benefits and face additional charges.
Pennsylvania state cooperation decisions are less time-sensitive and formalized. While early cooperation sometimes provides advantages, Pennsylvania prosecutors don’t offer formal substantial assistance departures, creating less pressure for immediate cooperation decisions.
Discovery and Case Investigation Federal discovery’s comprehensiveness allows thorough case analysis and defense preparation. Defense counsel can review extensive wiretap recordings, surveillance videos, financial records, and witness statements, identifying weaknesses and developing comprehensive defense theories.
Pennsylvania’s more limited discovery sometimes requires defense investigation to uncover facts that federal discovery would automatically reveal. State cases may require more extensive private investigation to compensate for limited prosecution disclosure.
Motion Practice Emphasis Federal cases benefit from extensive motion practice including detailed suppression motions challenging searches, seizures, and statements, motions to dismiss for legal insufficiency or constitutional violations, speedy trial motions when investigations are lengthy, and Brady/Giglio motions demanding disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
Federal judges take motions seriously, often holding extensive evidentiary hearings. Successful suppression motions can devastate federal cases because they often depend heavily on evidence from searches and electronic surveillance.
Dawn DiDonato-Burke’s prosecution experience helps identify motion opportunities that less experienced federal practitioners might miss, including Fourth Amendment violations in search warrant applications, Fifth Amendment issues with grand jury testimony or custodial statements, and Brady violations when prosecutors fail to disclose exculpatory information.
Trial Strategy Distinctions Federal trials require different strategies than state trials due to more sophisticated prosecution evidence and resources, juries drawn from broader geographic areas, longer trial durations allowing more detailed evidence presentation, and stricter evidentiary standards requiring careful foundation for exhibits and testimony.
Federal juries often include suburban residents more sympathetic to law enforcement than urban Philadelphia state juries, affecting jury selection and trial presentation strategies.
Sentencing Advocacy Federal sentencing requires extensive preparation including detailed sentencing memoranda with legal arguments, mitigation evidence including family letters, employment records, and character references, expert testimony about guideline application and departure grounds, and arguments for variances from guidelines based on individual circumstances.
Federal sentencing advocacy can result in years of difference in sentences, making thorough preparation essential. Understanding guideline calculations and departure/variance arguments requires specialized expertise.
Pennsylvania sentencing is less mathematical and more discretionary, emphasizing mitigating circumstances and defendant character over technical guideline calculations.
Cooperation After Conviction Federal system allows post-conviction cooperation through Rule 35(b) motions within one year of sentencing. Defendants can still provide substantial assistance after conviction, potentially receiving sentence reductions.
Pennsylvania lacks equivalent post-conviction cooperation mechanisms, making pre-sentence cooperation more critical.
Expertise Requirements Federal criminal defense requires specialized knowledge of federal criminal procedure, sentencing guidelines calculations and departure provisions, federal substantive criminal law, federal court local rules and practices, and federal prosecutor office policies and practices.
Many attorneys practice primarily in state court and lack federal expertise. DiDonato & Burke Law Firm’s experience in both federal and state systems provides comprehensive defense regardless of which jurisdiction prosecutes cases.
Former prosecutor experience in both systems is particularly valuable—understanding how federal and state prosecutors evaluate cases, make charging decisions, and approach plea negotiations significantly improves defense outcomes.
Philadelphia Legal Considerations for Both Systems
Philadelphia defendants face unique considerations when navigating federal and state criminal systems due to the city’s legal landscape, prosecution policies, and interaction between federal and state enforcement.
Concurrent Federal and State Charges Defendants sometimes face charges in both federal and state court for the same conduct, raising double jeopardy issues and requiring coordination between defense counsel in both proceedings.
Double Jeopardy Clause permits separate federal and state prosecutions for the same conduct under the “dual sovereignty doctrine” because federal and state governments are separate sovereigns. Philadelphia defendants can be convicted in both systems for identical conduct.
However, prosecutors often coordinate to avoid duplicate prosecutions. When federal prosecutors adopt cases, state prosecutors typically dismiss charges. Understanding these dynamics helps predict which system will ultimately prosecute.
Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office Policies Philadelphia DA’s Office under different administrations has had varying approaches to prosecution, affecting charging decisions, plea offers, and sentencing recommendations. Current office policies emphasize reducing mass incarceration, declining certain low-level cases, and reforming cash bail practices.
These progressive policies sometimes create incentives for defendants to prefer state prosecution over federal prosecution, as state plea offers may be more favorable than federal offers for comparable conduct.
U.S. Attorney’s Office Priorities U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has different priorities including combating gun violence through Project Safe Neighborhoods, disrupting drug trafficking organizations, prosecuting white-collar crimes and public corruption, and addressing violent crime.
Understanding federal priorities helps predict which cases will be adopted federally versus remaining in state court. Cases involving interstate conduct, significant drug quantities, or federal law enforcement investigations typically proceed federally.
Task Force Operations Philadelphia has numerous federal-state task forces including FBI Safe Streets Task Force targeting violent gangs, DEA task forces investigating drug trafficking, ATF task forces addressing gun violence, and IRS task forces pursuing financial crimes.
Cases investigated by task forces typically proceed federally, though some task force cases are prosecuted in state court based on prosecutorial discretion.
Immigration Consequences Federal convictions carry identical immigration consequences as state convictions—both can result in deportation for non-citizens. However, federal prosecutions sometimes involve concurrent immigration enforcement, with ICE detainers placed on defendants in federal custody.
Philadelphia’s sanctuary city policies limit local law enforcement cooperation with ICE, but federal prosecutions bypass these protections because defendants are in federal custody where ICE has direct access.
Bail and Pre-Trial Detention Federal bail standards under the Bail Reform Act differ from Pennsylvania bail standards. Federal courts presume detention for certain offenses including serious drug offenses and crimes of violence, making pre-trial release more difficult than in Pennsylvania state court.
Philadelphia state courts under recent reforms have reduced cash bail requirements, making state pre-trial release generally easier than federal release.
Collateral Consequences Both federal and state convictions carry collateral consequences including professional license suspensions, immigration consequences, and firearms prohibitions. However, federal convictions sometimes carry enhanced collateral consequences including federal benefits disqualification and more severe immigration consequences.
Expungement and Record Clearing Pennsylvania allows expungement of certain state convictions and ARD dispositions. Federal convictions cannot be expunged, though pardons and certificates of rehabilitation can mitigate consequences.
This distinction sometimes influences plea negotiations—defendants may accept state plea offers that allow eventual expungement rather than federal pleas that result in permanent records.
Legal Culture and Courtroom Atmosphere Federal court in Philadelphia is more formal than state court, with stricter courtroom decorum, more extensive procedural requirements, and different attorney-judge interactions.
Understanding these cultural differences helps counsel navigate each system effectively and prepare clients for courtroom experiences.
Former prosecutors Thomas F. Burke and Dawn DiDonato-Burke’s experience in both federal and Pennsylvania state systems provides comprehensive understanding of how these systems interact in Philadelphia, allowing strategic decisions about cooperation, plea negotiations, and trial strategies that less experienced counsel cannot match.
Frequently Asked Questions
What’s the main difference between federal and state criminal charges? Federal charges prosecute violations of federal law in federal court (U.S. District Court) with U.S. Attorneys, typically involving interstate commerce, federal agencies, or federal interests. State charges prosecute violations of Pennsylvania law in state courts (Philadelphia Municipal Court and Court of Common Pleas) with Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, covering most traditional crimes. Federal sentences are typically more severe with mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines, while state sentences follow Pennsylvania guidelines with more judicial discretion.
Can I be charged in both federal and state court for the same crime? Yes, the dual sovereignty doctrine allows separate federal and state prosecutions for the same conduct. However, prosecutors typically coordinate to avoid duplicate prosecutions. When federal prosecutors adopt cases, state prosecutors usually dismiss charges. Former prosecutor Thomas F. Burke can help navigate situations involving both systems.
How do I know if my case will be federal or state? Cases typically go federal when they involve interstate commerce, federal property or agencies, substantial drug quantities, organized crime, firearms violations with significant criminal history, or white-collar crimes affecting federal programs. Most Philadelphia street crimes including assault, robbery, burglary, and drug possession are prosecuted in state court unless federal interests are implicated. Former prosecutor experience helps predict which system will prosecute based on case facts.
Are federal sentences really longer than state sentences? Yes, substantially longer for comparable offenses. Federal mandatory minimums (5, 10, 20 years for drugs; 5-25 years for gun crimes) and sentencing guidelines typically produce sentences multiple times longer than Pennsylvania sentences for similar conduct. For example, federal drug trafficking might carry 10-20 years while Pennsylvania might recommend 3-5 years for comparable amounts.
What is the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania? It’s the federal trial court handling criminal and civil cases in Philadelphia and surrounding Eastern Pennsylvania counties including Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, Chester, Berks, and Lancaster. Located at 601 Market Street in Philadelphia, it’s where Assistant U.S. Attorneys prosecute federal crimes before federal judges and juries. Cases here follow Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Can I get probation for federal charges? Federal probation without imprisonment is rare and typically limited to least serious offenses or defendants with extraordinary circumstances. Most federal convictions result in imprisonment followed by supervised release. Federal guidelines and mandatory minimums usually require incarceration, unlike Pennsylvania state cases where probation is common for first offenses and less serious crimes.
What is substantial assistance in federal cases? Substantial assistance refers to cooperation where defendants provide valuable information or testimony helping prosecutors investigate or prosecute others. Under U.S.S.G. §5K1.1 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), substantial assistance can result in sentences below mandatory minimums and guideline ranges—sometimes reducing years or decades of imprisonment. Cooperation requires complete truthfulness and ongoing assistance. Former prosecutor Dawn DiDonato-Burke helps evaluate cooperation opportunities and negotiate favorable agreements.
How does discovery differ between federal and state court? Federal discovery is far more comprehensive, requiring prosecutors to disclose all material evidence, witness statements, cooperating witness benefits, and exculpatory information. Federal defense attorneys receive extensive documents including wiretap recordings, surveillance videos, and financial records. Pennsylvania discovery is more limited, disclosing witness lists and evidence prosecutors intend to use but not necessarily all investigative materials. This makes federal case preparation more thorough but also more complex.
What are federal mandatory minimum sentences? Federal mandatory minimums are statutorily required minimum prison terms that judges must impose regardless of circumstances. Common minimums include 5-10-20 years for drug amounts, 5-7-10 years for gun crimes, and career offender provisions requiring decades for repeat offenders. Only substantial assistance (cooperation) or safety valve provisions allow sentences below minimums. Pennsylvania has fewer and less severe mandatory minimums.
Should I cooperate with federal prosecutors? Cooperation decisions depend on whether you have valuable information prosecutors want, risks of retaliation from co-defendants, timing (early cooperation provides better benefits), and comparison of cooperation benefits versus trial prospects. Federal cooperation can dramatically reduce sentences but requires complete truthfulness and ongoing assistance. Former prosecutor Thomas F. Burke’s experience helps evaluate cooperation opportunities and negotiate favorable agreements that protect clients’ interests while securing maximum sentencing benefits.
Can federal charges be dropped or reduced? Federal charges can be dismissed through successful suppression motions excluding evidence, cooperation agreements where charges are reduced in exchange for assistance, or prosecutorial discretion when evidence becomes insufficient. However, federal prosecutors rarely dismiss cases without substantial reasons—they typically only file charges when evidence is strong. Effective federal defense identifies constitutional violations, challenges evidence, and negotiates favorable plea agreements when appropriate.
What happens at federal sentencing? Federal sentencing involves pre-sentence investigation reports by U.S. Probation Office detailing offense conduct and criminal history, guideline calculations determining recommended sentence ranges, sentencing hearings with witness testimony and evidence presentation, arguments about guideline applications and departure/variance grounds, and judges imposing sentences that must consider guidelines, statutory factors, and individual circumstances. Sentencing advocacy can affect years of imprisonment, making thorough preparation essential.
Expert Tips from Former Prosecutors
Thomas F. Burke and Dawn DiDonato-Burke’s combined prosecution experience in both federal and Pennsylvania state systems provides unique insights into navigating these distinct jurisdictions effectively.
Understanding Federal Prosecutor Priorities Former prosecutor Thomas F. Burke explains that federal prosecutors select cases based on specific priorities including crime severity (significant drug quantities, substantial financial losses, serious violence), defendant criminal history (targeting repeat offenders and career criminals), federal interests (interstate commerce, federal agency involvement, multi-state impact), resource justification (cases worthy of extensive federal resources), and deterrence value (cases sending messages to criminal organizations).
Understanding what makes cases attractive to federal prosecutors helps predict whether cases will be adopted federally and informs negotiation strategies. Cases at the margin—potentially prosecutable in either system—sometimes allow defense counsel to influence jurisdiction through prosecutor communications.
Recognizing When Federal Adoption Is Likely Dawn DiDonato-Burke’s prosecution experience helps identify cases likely to be adopted by federal prosecutors including drug cases with multi-kilogram quantities or interstate connections, gun cases involving defendants with three prior violent felonies (Armed Career Criminal Act exposure), white-collar schemes with losses exceeding $250,000, public corruption involving elected officials or high-ranking government employees, and organized crime investigations targeting leadership structures.
When federal adoption seems likely, defense strategies should account for federal sentencing consequences from investigation outset, including early cooperation considerations and federal discovery procedures.
Leveraging State vs Federal Sentencing Disparities When concurrent jurisdiction exists, sentencing disparities between systems create negotiation leverage. Former prosecutors understand these disparities and can sometimes negotiate state plea agreements that federal prosecutors reluctantly accept to avoid losing cases to state court with substantially lower sentences.
This strategy requires careful timing and prosecutorial relationships—pushing too aggressively for state prosecution can backfire by annoying federal prosecutors who then adopt cases specifically to prevent perceived manipulation.
Federal Discovery Strategies Federal discovery’s comprehensiveness creates defense opportunities that less experienced counsel sometimes miss. Former prosecutor Thomas F. Burke emphasizes obtaining all discovery immediately, analyzing wiretap recordings and surveillance videos frame-by-frame for constitutional violations and inconsistencies, reviewing financial records for alternative explanations of transactions, identifying Brady material prosecutors should have disclosed but didn’t, and retaining experts early to analyze complex evidence like forensic accounting or drug chemistry.
Federal discovery often reveals investigation weaknesses that aren’t apparent from indictment language alone. Thorough discovery review frequently identifies suppression motion grounds that less careful attorneys miss.
Cooperation Negotiation Expertise Federal cooperation provides powerful sentencing benefits but requires careful negotiation to protect clients. Former prosecutors understand negotiating cooperation agreements before other defendants cooperate (early cooperation receives best benefits), ensuring agreements specify expected sentence reductions and U.S.S.G. §5K1.1 motions, protecting clients from testifying against dangerous co-defendants when possible, and preserving ability to withdraw from agreements if prosecutors demand unreasonable assistance.
Cooperation gone wrong can devastate defendants—lying during cooperation results in prosecution for false statements and loss of all cooperation benefits. Former prosecutor experience helps evaluate cooperation risks realistically and negotiate protective agreement terms.
Understanding Federal Judge Tendencies Eastern District judges have individual sentencing philosophies and case management styles. Some judges regularly grant variances from guidelines while others rarely depart. Some judges are skeptical of cooperation agreements while others view cooperation favorably.
Former prosecutor Thomas F. Burke’s experience before Eastern District judges provides insight into individual judicial tendencies, helping tailor sentencing arguments and trial strategies for maximum effectiveness with specific judges.
State Court Advantages and Strategy When cases can proceed in either system, state court often provides significant advantages including lower sentences without mandatory minimums for most offenses, more jury trial acquittals (Philadelphia juries historically acquit more frequently than federal juries), faster case resolution (federal cases often take years), and expungement possibilities for some dispositions.
However, state court also has disadvantages including limited discovery requiring more defense investigation, fewer resources for complex cases, and sometimes less experienced judges handling procedural issues.
Preventing Federal Adoption Dawn DiDonato-Burke’s prosecution experience revealed that some state cases avoid federal adoption through strategic approaches including resolving state cases quickly before federal prosecutors review them, demonstrating state court will impose appropriate sentences, highlighting mitigating circumstances that don’t warrant federal resources, and maintaining professional relationships with federal prosecutors who sometimes defer to state prosecution.
However, attempting to manipulate forum can backfire. Former prosecutor judgment helps determine when forum selection efforts are appropriate versus when they’ll antagonize prosecutors.
Federal Sentencing Mitigation Federal sentencing allows extensive mitigation including detailed sentencing memoranda with legal and factual arguments, character references from family, employers, and community members, expert testimony about mental health, addiction, or other circumstances, acceptance of responsibility demonstrations through actions beyond guilty pleas, and arguments for downward variances based on unusual circumstances not adequately considered by guidelines.
Effective federal sentencing advocacy can reduce sentences by years or decades compared to inadequate preparation. Former prosecutor understanding of what arguments federal judges find persuasive helps develop compelling mitigation presentations.
Recognizing Task Force Investigations Federal-state task force investigations typically result in federal prosecution. Signs of task force involvement include FBI or DEA lead agents rather than local police, federal search warrants rather than state warrants, target letters from U.S. Attorney’s Office, and cooperation requests mentioning federal charges.
Recognizing task force involvement early helps defense counsel prepare for likely federal prosecution, adjusting strategy accordingly and considering federal cooperation opportunities.
Managing Dual Prosecutions When defendants face charges in both systems simultaneously, coordination between defense counsel becomes essential. Former prosecutors understand managing parallel cases through timing guilty pleas strategically to maximize cooperation benefits in both cases, avoiding statements in one case that prejudice the other, negotiating global resolutions addressing both federal and state charges, and coordinating sentencing advocacy to present consistent mitigating narratives.
DiDonato & Burke Law Firm’s comprehensive experience in both federal and state systems provides strategic advantages that attorneys practicing primarily in one system cannot match. Former prosecutor knowledge of how both systems operate, what arguments resonate with each system’s prosecutors and judges, and how to leverage differences between systems significantly improves outcomes for clients facing charges in either jurisdiction.
Talk to a Criminal Defense Attorney in Philadelphia
Federal and state criminal charges in Philadelphia differ fundamentally in jurisdiction, investigation procedures, court systems, sentencing severity, and defense strategies. Understanding these differences is crucial for defendants facing prosecution in either system, as the distinction between federal and state charges can mean the difference between years and decades of imprisonment.
Federal prosecutions typically involve interstate conduct, substantial criminal activity, or federal interests, proceeding through U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with Assistant U.S. Attorneys, federal sentencing guidelines, and mandatory minimum sentences. State prosecutions handle traditional street crimes through Philadelphia’s court system with the District Attorney’s Office, Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines, and generally more lenient penalties.
Effective defense requires strategies tailored to each system’s unique characteristics including federal discovery’s comprehensiveness versus state discovery limitations, federal cooperation’s substantial sentencing benefits versus state cooperation’s modest advantages, federal mandatory minimums versus state judicial discretion, and federal jury composition versus Philadelphia-only state juries.
DiDonato & Burke Law Firm’s former prosecutors Thomas F. Burke and Dawn DiDonato-Burke provide unique advantages through experience in both federal and Pennsylvania state prosecution. This insider knowledge of how prosecutors in both systems evaluate cases, make charging decisions, and approach plea negotiations significantly improves defense outcomes regardless of which jurisdiction prosecutes.
Whether facing federal drug trafficking charges with decade-long mandatory minimums, state robbery charges in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, or uncertainty about which system will prosecute your case, former prosecutor representation provides comprehensive understanding of both systems and strategies for achieving optimal outcomes in either jurisdiction.
If you or a loved one faces federal or state criminal charges in Philadelphia, Bucks County, or anywhere in Eastern Pennsylvania, contact DiDonato & Burke Law Firm immediately at (215) 567-1248. Our 24/7 emergency response ensures that former prosecutors can begin investigating your case, determining which jurisdiction will prosecute, developing appropriate defense strategies, and protecting your rights from the moment you need us most. When facing charges in either the federal or state system, experience the advantage of having former prosecutors who understand both sides of both systems defending your case.
