Massachusetts Federal Criminal Defense Attorney

Statewide District of Massachusetts federal defense. This page is the central hub for Marin & Murphy’s federal criminal defense practice across all three divisions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts — the Eastern Division (John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, Boston), the Central Division (Harold D. Donohue Federal Building, Worcester), and the Western Division (U.S. Courthouse, Springfield). Because federal cases are prosecuted district-wide, physical office proximity is irrelevant — we represent clients throughout D. Mass. Use the case-type index below to reach the defense page for your specific federal charge.

What Federal Charges Actually Mean for You

The gap between federal and state criminal prosecution is not a matter of degree — it is a different system with different rules, different leverage, and different consequences. Federal prosecutors do not file charges until their investigation is substantially complete. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Sentencing Guidelines, and the resources of the FBI, DEA, HHS-OIG, and IRS Criminal Investigation Division combine to produce a system that conviction rates consistently exceed 90 percent (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2024 Sourcebook, Table 11). That number is not cause for surrender — it is context for understanding why early intervention, experienced counsel, and a clear-eyed defense strategy matter more here than in almost any other legal setting.

Federal charges in Massachusetts carry exposure that extends far beyond imprisonment. A conviction triggers mandatory exclusion from federal healthcare programs — a career-ending consequence for physicians, administrators, and any healthcare organization that employs them. It activates professional licensing proceedings before the Board of Registration in Medicine, the Board of Public Accountancy, and other regulatory bodies. It subjects assets to forfeiture proceedings that can move simultaneously with the criminal case. For non-citizens, it creates immigration consequences that a plea agreement will not mention unless your attorney raises them. For executives, it destroys employment eligibility in regulated industries, triggers D&O insurance disputes, and collapses the professional equity built over decades.

The three divisions of the District of Massachusetts serve distinct populations and produce different case profiles. Boston’s Eastern Division handles the Longwood Medical Area hospital networks, Kendall Square biotech companies, and the Lawrence-Lowell fentanyl corridor. Worcester’s Central Division handles MassHealth provider fraud, regional drug distribution networks, and firearm offenses in Central Massachusetts. Springfield’s Western Division handles drug-violence cases tied to the Pioneer Valley corridor and public corruption matters reaching into Western Massachusetts municipalities. Understanding which courthouse governs your case — and what that means for the assigned judge, the AUSA handling the matter, and the realistic range of outcomes — is foundational work that begins before the first bail hearing.

The Federal Criminal Process in Massachusetts

Federal cases do not begin with an arrest. They begin with an investigation — and by the time that investigation becomes visible to the person under scrutiny, it has often been underway for a significant period. Recognizing where a matter stands in the federal process determines what defense options are available.

Grand jury investigations are the primary vehicle for federal case development in Massachusetts. A grand jury subpoena for documents or testimony is not a charge — but it is a signal that the government is developing a case that may involve you. The recipient of a subpoena has rights and choices that must be exercised carefully. Testimony before a grand jury occurs without a judge, without opposing counsel, and without the procedural protections of a trial. Retaining counsel before responding to any federal subpoena is not optional.

Target letters from the U.S. Attorney’s Office notify an individual that they are a target of a federal grand jury investigation — meaning the government has substantial evidence linking them to criminal conduct and is considering seeking an indictment. A target letter is the clearest signal that indictment is possible or likely. It also creates a narrow window for pre-indictment defense work: presenting evidence to prosecutors, engaging in early resolution discussions, or raising legal challenges before charges are filed. These opportunities close at indictment.

Arrest on a federal complaint occurs when prosecutors obtain a magistrate judge’s authorization to arrest based on a sworn complaint before a grand jury indictment is returned. This typically happens when the government believes the subject is a flight risk or when the investigation requires immediate action. The initial appearance before a magistrate judge, the detention hearing, and the preliminary hearing all occur in rapid succession. The detention decision — whether the defendant remains in custody pending trial — can turn on advocacy at the bail hearing, and first impressions before a federal magistrate judge are difficult to reverse.

Indictment is the formal charging document in felony federal cases, returned by a grand jury after the government presents its evidence. Once indicted, the defendant enters the arraignment-through-trial track. The government’s discovery disclosures, motions to suppress, plea negotiations, and trial preparation all occur within the framework established at arraignment. Federal trials in the District of Massachusetts are conducted before district judges who manage complex dockets and expect fully prepared counsel.

Federal Cases We Handle in Massachusetts

Marin & Murphy represents individuals and organizations facing the full range of federal criminal charges filed in the District of Massachusetts. Given Boston’s position as the national center of healthcare and life sciences, the firm’s Massachusetts federal practice is healthcare-first — but the full scope of representation covers every major federal offense category prosecuted in this district.

Healthcare Fraud and False Claims Act Defense

No federal enforcement category is more active in Massachusetts than healthcare fraud. The USAO for the District of Massachusetts has consistently identified healthcare fraud as a priority, and the district’s concentration of hospitals, biotech companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and federally funded research institutions creates a volume of investigations and prosecutions that exceeds most other districts. Enforcement spans False Claims Act civil and criminal liability, Anti-Kickback Statute violations, Stark Law referral prohibitions, Medicare and Medicaid billing fraud, pharmaceutical and clinical trial fraud, telemedicine schemes, home health and hospice fraud, NIH and NSF grant fraud, and emerging enforcement against private equity-backed healthcare entities. The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s $15 million False Claims Act settlement in December 2025 and the $110 million telemedicine fraud prosecution involving Expansion Media and Hybrid Management Group are recent examples of the district’s enforcement reach. Physicians, hospital administrators, compliance officers, billing companies, research scientists, and executives at every level of the healthcare industry have retained Marin & Murphy when federal investigators begin asking questions.

Federal Drug Charges

Drug trafficking and distribution cases represent the highest volume federal offense category in Massachusetts, estimated at 200 to 250 defendants annually. The Lawrence-Lowell corridor in Essex County has been the epicenter of federal fentanyl enforcement, with DEA and FBI operations producing multi-defendant OCDETF cases that carry mandatory minimum sentences of five to twenty years depending on drug type and quantity. Springfield’s Western Division handles a separate cluster of drug-violence cases linked to the Pioneer Valley’s distribution networks. Federal drug charges trigger mandatory minimums under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and § 846, and the government’s cooperation leverage — offering reduced sentences to co-defendants who provide testimony — creates pressure that requires experienced navigation from the earliest stages of representation.

Federal White Collar Crime Defense

Wire fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, embezzlement, and financial institution fraud prosecutions are a defining feature of the District of Massachusetts docket, particularly for the Kendall Square biotech corridor and Boston’s financial services sector. Executives at publicly traded companies who receive target letters alleging securities fraud or revenue recognition violations face parallel SEC civil enforcement simultaneously with DOJ criminal investigation — a dual-track exposure that demands defense counsel with experience managing both proceedings. White-collar defendants typically retain private counsel at rates exceeding 50 to 70 percent, reflecting the professional stakes and financial resources of the defendants most often targeted.

Federal Firearms Charges

Massachusetts has some of the strictest state firearms laws in the country, and federal prosecutors frequently bring 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) felon-in-possession charges that run alongside state prosecutions or that arise independently through Project Safe Neighborhoods enforcement in Boston and Springfield. Federal firearms charges carry mandatory minimums under the Armed Career Criminal Act for defendants with qualifying prior convictions, producing sentencing exposure that dwarfs the underlying state charges.

Federal Government Fraud Defense

PPP loan fraud prosecutions from the 2020-2021 pandemic relief period continue to move through the District of Massachusetts docket into 2026. Federal grant fraud — particularly NIH and NSF research grant misrepresentation — is a growing enforcement area, accelerated by the Dana-Farber settlement and the USAO’s stated focus on federally funded research integrity. Procurement fraud and contracting fraud targeting federal agencies round out a category that spans individual defendants and corporate entities.

RICO and Organized Crime Defense

MS-13, the Trinitarios, and other organized criminal enterprises operating in Lynn, Lawrence, and Boston’s Eastern Division have been the subjects of multi-defendant RICO prosecutions that sweep in individuals at every level of the alleged conspiracy. RICO charges expose defendants to enhanced penalties, mandatory forfeiture of proceeds, and the reputational consequences of being named in a racketeering indictment regardless of individual culpability.

Federal Cybercrime Defense

Massachusetts’ concentration of technology companies, universities, and biomedical research institutions creates a growing cybercrime docket involving computer fraud, trade secret theft, and economic espionage prosecutions. The proximity of MIT, Harvard, and Boston’s technology corridor to national security-adjacent research makes export control violations and economic espionage an active enforcement area for the district.

Federal Child Exploitation Defense

Federal child exploitation and CSAM cases are prosecuted by the FBI’s Boston Division as a consistent national priority. These cases carry mandatory minimum sentences, lifetime sex offender registration, and supervised release conditions that function as ongoing restrictions long after any prison term concludes. Defense in these matters requires experienced counsel capable of examining the government’s digital forensics, challenging search and seizure procedures, and advocating for sentencing outcomes that reflect the full circumstances of the individual.

Federal Public Corruption Defense

Public corruption cases in Massachusetts — targeting state and local officials, police officers, and public employees — arrive in the federal system at irregular intervals but with high visibility. Bribery, honest services fraud, and extortion charges under the Hobbs Act carry substantial sentences and career-ending collateral consequences for elected officials, law enforcement personnel, and government contractors.

Federal Immigration Crimes Defense

Illegal reentry, visa fraud, and immigration document fraud prosecutions represent a smaller but consistent portion of the Massachusetts federal docket. For defendants with immigration exposure, a federal criminal conviction — even a misdemeanor plea — can trigger removal proceedings, bars to reentry, and consequences that extend to family members. Defense in these matters requires counsel attentive to both the criminal and immigration dimensions of every plea or sentencing decision.

Penalties, Collateral Consequences, and Escalation Risk

Federal sentencing in the District of Massachusetts is governed by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which assign offense levels and criminal history categories that produce recommended sentencing ranges. Judges are not bound to follow those ranges, but guideline calculations drive plea negotiations, cooperation agreements, and sentencing advocacy in ways that make early understanding of the likely range essential.

Beyond the Guidelines, several offense categories carry mandatory minimum sentences that remove judicial discretion entirely. Drug trafficking offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841 carry five-year minimums for certain quantities, with escalation to ten and twenty years based on drug type and weight. The Armed Career Criminal Act mandates fifteen-year minimums for felon-in-possession defendants with three qualifying prior convictions. Healthcare fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 carries up to ten years per count, with the government’s ability to stack counts amplifying exposure to life-altering totals.

Collateral consequences in federal healthcare and white-collar cases often exceed the criminal sentence in practical impact. Medicare and Medicaid exclusion is mandatory upon conviction of a healthcare-related offense and is permanent absent successful administrative appeal. Professional license revocation proceedings at the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, the Board of Pharmacy, and comparable licensing bodies begin automatically following federal charges and operate on a parallel track. Asset forfeiture proceedings can target property connected to the alleged offense before a conviction is obtained, freezing resources needed for legal defense. Tax consequences, civil liability exposure, and the reputational destruction that follows federal indictment in Boston’s professional communities compound the formal legal penalties into consequences that touch every area of a person’s life.

Why Experience in the District of Massachusetts Matters

The federal criminal defense bar is not uniform. An attorney who primarily practices in state court — or who handles occasional federal matters without a sustained federal practice — encounters the District of Massachusetts as unfamiliar terrain. The Moakley Courthouse’s docket management, the tendencies of individual district judges, the USAO’s current enforcement priorities, and the specific procedures governing detention hearings, grand jury matters, and sentencing advocacy in this district are not transferable from other practice settings.

When a federal case ends in conviction, post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 remains available where constitutional errors affected the outcome.

Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy brings demonstrated serious felony trial experience to every federal matter the firm handles. The Providence Journal has covered Murphy’s work across murder acquittals, wrongful conviction DNA litigation, and high-profile jury trials — cases where the consequences of the outcome were irreversible and where the quality of advocacy visibly mattered. Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly has identified both Murphy and Matthew T. Marin as attorneys who have shaped constitutional litigation across DUI jurisprudence and search-and-seizure law, not simply practiced it. Murphy’s authorship of the MCLE New England treatise A Practical Guide to Trying DUI Cases in Rhode Island (2nd Edition 2024), and her work lecturing to the Rhode Island Municipal Police Training Academy on DUI trial practice and defense strategy, reflect the kind of legal depth that translates across federal practice areas.

Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (D. Mass. Federal Bar #663646). Matthew T. Marin is admitted in Massachusetts state courts (BBO #672462). The firm represents clients in federal matters across three states. Its Massachusetts practice operates within the First Circuit, where the Court of Appeals also reviews Rhode Island cases; its Connecticut practice operates within the Second Circuit. That footprint gives the firm federal practice in both the District of Massachusetts and District of Connecticut. The firm’s experience in complex, multi-party civil litigation reflects a capacity that informs its approach to multi-defendant federal criminal cases and parallel civil and criminal enforcement matters.