FEDERAL PRACTICE
Federal prosecutions are different.
They are document-intensive, guideline-driven, and often the result of lengthy investigations conducted by multiple agencies. By the time charges are filed, the government’s case has typically been developing for months or years.
Federal defense requires experience — and perspective from both sides of the courtroom.
At Dinkin & Moore, federal cases are handled by attorneys who have tried complex cases as both prosecutors and defense counsel in the Eastern District of Virginia and beyond.
Experience on Both Sides of the Federal System
William Dinkin
Bill Dinkin has represented individuals and businesses in high-stakes federal investigations and jury trials for more than three decades. His federal practice includes defense of charges involving:
-
Wire, mail, and bank fraud
-
Healthcare and Medicaid fraud
-
Money laundering and structuring
-
Public corruption
-
Environmental crimes
-
Trade secret theft
-
Narcotics conspiracies
-
Tax offenses
-
Civil rights prosecutions
-
National security-related allegations
In December 2024, Mr. Dinkin secured an acquittal in a two-week federal jury trial involving allegations of a civil rights violation resulting in death.
In 2025, he obtained an acquittal in a multi-week federal jury trial involving allegations of international terrorism.
He has tried more than fifty jury cases over the course of his career, including complex financial prosecutions and multi-defendant federal conspiracies.
Michael C. Moore
Michael Moore served for twenty-two years (2002–2024) as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, in both Richmond and Norfolk. During that time, he investigated and prosecuted hundreds of federal criminal cases involving fraud, public corruption, drug trafficking, immigration offenses, and child exploitation.
He coordinated a multi-agency Identity Theft Task Force and supervised Special Assistant United States Attorneys assigned to that task force. For more than twelve years, he served as the Richmond office’s Professional Responsibility Officer, advising federal prosecutors on legal ethics and compliance issues.
Before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mr. Moore served as a state prosecutor and as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney handling Medicaid fraud prosecutions in federal court. He has tried more than fifty jury cases in federal and state courts.
His experience provides insight into how federal investigations are structured, how charging decisions are made, and how federal prosecutors assess risk at trial.
Early Intervention in Federal Investigations
Many federal clients' first contact counsel when agents request an interview, execute a search warrant, or serve a grand jury subpoena or target letter.
That moment is critical.
Early engagement can:
-
Shape charging decisions
-
Manage document production and privilege concerns
-
Avoid strategic missteps
-
Position the case more favorably if indictment becomes unavoidable
In some cases, early intervention prevents charges altogether. In others, it materially improves negotiating leverage.
Waiting rarely strengthens a federal defense.
Trial Readiness Drives Leverage
Most federal cases resolve short of trial. They resolve favorably, however, only when trial is a credible possibility.
We prepare federal cases with trial in mind from the outset. That preparation influences negotiations, sentencing advocacy, and the government’s assessment of risk.
Preparation is not posturing. It is credibility.
Sentencing Strategy Begins at Indictment
Federal sentencing guidelines affect nearly every strategic decision in a case.
Relevant conduct, guideline enhancements, cooperation considerations, forfeiture exposure, and mitigation development require early analysis. A federal case cannot be defended effectively without understanding its potential sentencing landscape from the beginning.
Sentencing advocacy does not begin after conviction. It begins at or before indictment.
Intelligence Over Aggression
Federal litigation rewards disciplined analysis and strategic precision.
Volume motions, theatrics, or reflexive confrontation rarely change outcomes. Careful review of the evidence, focused challenges to weaknesses in the government’s proof, and thoughtful presentation of alternative explanations build credibility — with prosecutors and with juries.
We approach federal defense with intelligence over aggression.
Serious Representation at Every Stage
Federal litigation rewards disciplined analysis and strategic precision.
From pretrial investigations through trial and sentencing, we carefully develop and review evidence, hone arguments and persuasively marshal this information into persuasive courtroom presentations. We don't file boilerplate motions (we literally do not "go through the motions" just to appear productive, and we don't bang the table in fake angry displays that any judge or jury can see through. Powerful persuasion is based on credibility, which comes from a careful review of the evidence and focused challenges to weaknesses in the government’s case. Simply put, we are strategically assertive for our clients.