Still, that doesn't preclude a jury's inclination -- predisposition, if you will -- to attribute instant credence to the statements uttered by a supposed eyewitness to criminal behavior.

Welcome to the slippery slope of eyewitness identifications in criminal trials, subject matter that has been adjudged more than a bit problematic by many criminal law researchers and advocacy groups focused upon just trial outcomes.

Here's the problem that often exists with such testimony, as stated by the prominent national group Innocence Project: it is frequently marked by error in some or all details, resulting in a harrowing bottom line marked by the incarceration of a wrongly convicted individual.

In fact, notes the Project, faulty witness identification is a prime determinant "in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide."

There can be a number of reasons why people make identification-related mistakes in good faith, states the Project, with many errors linking closely back to infirm police lineup practices and procedures.

Things simply must improve, say victims' advocates, with a good starting point being adoption of a number of suggested reforms concerning the lineup process. Those suggestions can be gleaned via the above-cited link.

Wrongful conviction for any reason is arguably the greatest injustice that can ever occur in the American criminal justice system. No reasonable person would ever argue against the implementation of every systemic safeguard that can work to prevent such an outcome.

In fact, criminal sentencing reform in the federal realm was a top-shelf focus of the Obama presidential administration and the U.S. Department of Justice under the helm of former Attorney General Eric Holder.

And that was this: the election of Donald Trump as president, and his selection of a new AG having a clear mandate to dismantle key aspects of the Holder-era sentencing reforms.

Current Attorney General Jeff Sessions has wasted little time taking action to accomplish just that goal. In a memo sent out last week to the country's nearly 100 U.S. attorneys offices, the new AG directed federal prosecutors to zealously apply mandatory minimum sentencing rules to many drug defendants.

Although DOJ officials state that the new policy will not unravel prior reforms seeking to shield many persons charged with lower-level drug offenses from unduly long prison terms, they acknowledge that Sessions' directive will likely spur an increase in the nation's federal prison population.

And that is precisely what the Obama/Holder reforms sought to avoid by forging new guidelines relaxing strict sentencing penalties. Moreover, note proponents of liberalized reforms, securing alternatives to prison for nonviolent and, often, first-time offenders reduces future crime (recidivism) and sharply drives down costs across the criminal justice system.

A recent national news report on the Sessions' memo states that there are presently about 190,000 individuals confined in America's federal prisons.

And, of course, millions are locked behind bars in the many state prisons that dot the country.

And if you are at all representative of a prototypical shop, store, retailer or other type of enterprise operating across the country, it is just as likely that a number of transactions you make with your banker are for less than $10,000

Well, here's one reason why, as legions of small business owners across the nation already know: because the Criminal Investigation division of the IRS might come after you on grounds that your deposited money links with something like drug trafficking, with your transaction being an attempt to engage in unlawful money laundering.

For years now, the IRS has acted upon that assumption with this attendant action: it simply seizes your money under its asset forfeiture program and thereafter resists your attempts to get it back.

How often does this happen?

Reportedly, a lot -- so often, actually, that a recent report authored by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration excoriates the IRS for its agents' behavior under the mandates spelled out in the federal Bank Secrecy Act and demands material changes to how it is being carried out.

Here's a truly scary bottom-line finding from the IG's report: In more than 90 percent of cases it examined, IRS targets losing money through asset forfeiture were "businesses and individuals whose funds were obtained legally."

That is scandalous, to be sure.

Things seem destined to change going forward, with U.S. legislators closely involved with the IRS and tax policy matters commending the IG's report and demanding that it be acted upon to rein in the asset forfeiture program and render it far more accountable.

Indeed, the former chief executive took unprecedented action last Thursday, on the eve of the incoming Trump presidential administration, by commuting the sentences of many federal inmates serving lengthy incarceration periods on drug-related charges.

There was a time when such leniency would have come in for harsh criticism to a degree far exceeding that which exists today. Indeed, it has been growing discontent among many quarters with the harsh sentencing outcomes linked to policies crafted in prior decades that has largely emboldened Obama to act.

And act he has, with media reports across the country underscoring the impressive extent to which he has fostered material adjustment in high numbers of drug cases.

Throughout his presidential tenure, Obama railed against what he saw as a fundamental inequity in the criminal justice system, namely, the reality posed by thousands of inmates serving decades-long terms behind bars for relatively minor offenses. In fact, a chief complaint of system critics has long been that no one is served -- not inmates, their families, tax payers or the general public -- by lengthy lockups for first-time nonviolent offenders.

Obama granted clemency to more than 1,700 prisoners during his administration, which many media reports note is a number that far exceeds the clemency grants of any other American president and renders the former chief executive a stand-alone activist in that regard.

Since RICO's passage, that lament is heard far less often.

The catalogue of such offenses is encompassing, indeed, as evidenced by a partial compilation noted on a RICO-related federal crimes page of our website at the metro Detroit-based Law Offices of Bradley J. Friedman. Prosecutors often file RICO charges against individuals alleging criminal activity such as money laundering, interstate drug trafficking, counterfeiting, tax evasion, prostitution and additional offenses with an interstate nexus.

RICO is popular with prosecutors because of its broad reach and its efficacy in enabling the prosecution of individuals alleged to be connected to an unlawful enterprise and acting on its behalf, even in the absence sometimes of hard proof that a targeted individual personally committed a crime.

That sheer reach, states an online analysis of RICO, continues to make the statutory enactment -- which also now encompasses state versions -- "a controversial law."

It is certainly unquestionable, given the potential and obvious downsides for any suspect targeted in a RICO probe, that such person has an immediate and compelling need for proven defense help from an experienced attorney.

As the above overview notes, although an alleged RICO violation is serious, indeed, the prosecution still must prove its case.

A seasoned criminal defense attorney will insist that it do so on every material point.

Given its headache-inducing propensities, the annual exercise of grappling with taxes results in errors. As a recent Forbes article on tax-related concerns duly notes, "Taxes are complex, and mistakes happen."

Indeed, and in some instances, the IRS will allege that a filer has engaged in tax evasion through willful behavior that spells fraud against the government.

Candidly, that is a serious charge, and any individual who is targeted by IRS special agents in a criminal case has an urgent need to seek proven legal counsel from an attorney commanding a deep well of experience defending clients in federal cases.

As Forbes notes, the term "willful" readily conjures up a slippery slope. The burden of proof establishing that an error was innocent or, at worst, the result of simple sloppiness, rests with a filer, and is not a routinely easy hurdle to clear.

"Big dollars and even one's freedom can turn on what's willful," states Forbes, which is indeed the case: A criminal conviction on tax evasion or another tax-related fraud can bring costly monetary penalties and a lengthy prison term.

Any Michigan resident having questions or concerns regarding tax fraud or any other fraud-related charge can obtain prompt guidance and aggressive legal representation from an experienced Detroit metro-based criminal defense attorney who routinely advocates on behalf of clients facing federal charges.

They also include unlawful acts that reside under the umbrella of so-called "white collar" crimes. Criminal charges in this realm of law range from tax evasion, securities-fraud schemes and money laundering to embezzlement, mortgage scams and Medicare fraud.

Perhaps more than any other work realm, the medical industry is under an ongoing regulatory microscope, with myriad -- and seemingly ever-escalating -- rules and regulations governing medical professionals' conduct and, especially, billing practices.

It's easy to make mistakes, to overlook some requirements and, as a consequence, run afoul of federal laws.

That is especially common regarding Medicare billings, where inaccurate statements go out as the result of good-faith mistakes and, concededly, purposeful fraud activity on some occasions.

In either case, individuals and business entities that become targets in medical fraud investigations (Medicare-related or otherwise) unquestionably face withering scrutiny from federal task forces and other law enforcement agencies.

Given that, coupled with the fact that outcomes in federal white collar fraud matters can yield truly adverse outcomes, timely and aggressive assistance from a proven federal criminal defense attorney can be of material benefit to a criminal suspect.

Time is often of the essence in a federal criminal investigation. An experienced lawyer can answer questions, quickly educate a client and provide diligent legal representation aimed at securing an optimal defense outcome in every case.

For those facing charges of federal crimes, the ability to exercise their guaranteed right to meet with their lawyer has met with some logistical setbacks in Michigan. Since the U.S. Marshals Service does not maintain their own facilities for housing detainees, it falls to “local” jails to hold those arrested on federal charges. To call some of these jails “local,” however, is a bit of a misnomer — in some cases, the detainees are held hours away from the courts where they are being heard. The problem stems from the jails of downtown Wayne County failing to pass living condition inspections in 2013.

According to reports, Michigan usually maintains roughly 600 federal detainees who are the responsibility of the U.S. Marshal Service. Most of these individuals are deprived the kind of lawyer-client relationship that should be expected, and are instead forced to suffer sup-par communication and protection by their representation because Wayne County jails are unfit to hold them.

The right to representation is one of the most valuable rights those in the United States rely on when they are accused of crimes, whether the charges are federal or not. A high-caliber defense attorney will always go the extra miles necessary to ensure that his or her clients receive the best possible representation, regardless of how various institutions may interfere.

So says U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in a remark linked with President Obama's recent commutations of lengthy prison terms for a high number of defendants locked behind bars in federal penitentiaries.

Indeed, it is eminently clear that the current presidential administration is singularly proactive when it comes to its criticism of many sentencing outcomes and its tandem demand that more equity be introduced into the criminal justice system.

A recent ABC News article notes the across-the-aisle support that has emerged for federal sentencing reforms in recent years, with a wide swath of critics pointing out the often draconian sentences meted out to criminal defendants, especially many first-time nonviolent drug offenders. That article stresses that, notwithstanding the bipartisan clarion call for reform, momentum has stalled a bit recently owing to "the intensely political climate of the presidential election year."

Obama seems to care little about that. Yates voices an administration expectation that "many more men and women will be given a second chance" to leave prison early before the president leaves office.

Recent history would seem to readily support that view. The president has commuted many hundreds of sentences during his tenure. The next few months could add greatly to the total.

Those articles, reports and studies cover a lot of territory, for this pointed reason: There is much to consider.

There is growing appreciation, for example, that far too many Americans are wasting their lives away locked behind bars for decades; that mandatory-minimum sentences pushed by prosecutors are often resulting in injustice; that a punish-first-and-hard criminal law rationale is frighteningly expensive for taxpayers; and that "justice" discriminates against certain defendants.

Indeed, federal law questions and concerns are complex, which owes certainly in part to the sheer scope of charging possibilities open to prosecutors. As we note in our May 19 blog entry, the passionate and aggressive advocacy we bring to bear on behalf of individuals facing the daunting power of criminal law authorities extends "across a wide universe of federal charges."

When you hear the term tax evasion, for example, it is typically in connection with a federal investigation or charge. And that is similarly true with money laundering, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, securities fraud, Ponzi schemes, Internet crime, Medicare fraud and many other matters.

Any individual who is in the crosshairs of criminal investigators relating to a federal matter might reasonably want to secure the assistance of an attorney well-versed in federal criminal defense without delay.

Federal charges are serious matters. A proven legal advocate can help ensure that a criminal suspect's rights are diligently promoted and that investigators' actions are duly circumscribed by applicable laws.

Notwithstanding the potentially dire consequences attached to both a state or federal probe, however, many criminal law commentators routinely note that an investigation involving federal agents and prosecutors is often distinguished from a state investigatory and enforcement effort in several material ways.

And here's another: The federal judicial system -- most fundamentally, the federal rules and procedures that play out in a litigated matter -- are different in many respects from state procedural and substantive laws.

The bottom line in many federal criminal law matters is that a charged defendant is often best served by an experienced criminal defense attorney commanding a proven background in federal matters and in representing clients in federal courts.

At The Law Offices of Bradley J. Friedman in Farmington Hills, our principal attorney's resume features criminal defense representation across a wide universe of federal charges, along with experience as a former prosecuting attorney.

That combined experience cannot guarantee a specific outcome in any case, of course, but it routinely does affect criminal law strategies and client representation at our firm.

We welcome readers' questions and feedback regarding this post and future entries. We hope that our audience finds the posts timely and informative, as well as a logical starting point for meaningful discussion of important criminal law-related matters.