Skip to main content
Richard Ware Levitt
Avvo
Pro

Richard Levitt’s Legal Cases

24 total

  • U.S. v. Dixon

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Death Penalty Attorney
    Description:
    Client indicted for several murders. Appointed as death penalty counsel. Client substantially limited evidence he would permit at mitigation phase. Jury declined to invoke death penalty
  • U.S. v. Morrison

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2008
    Outcome:
    client acquitted of murder, arson and robbery, court dismissed RICO and RICO conspiracy; client sentenced only for gun possession
    Description:
    Five month RICO trial in Eastern District of New York, began as possible death penalty case; client acquitted of murder, arson, and robbery; court dismissed RICO and RICO conspiracy charges, leaving only a single weapons possession count. Levitt & Kaizer served as principal research counsel. Principal trial counsel were William Murphy and Kenneth Ravenell of the Murphy Firm.
  • U.S. v. Reifler

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    successful appeal of restitution issues
    Description:
    Stock fraud appeal in Second Circuit involving complex restitution issues
  • U.S. v. Reyes

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    acquittal
    Description:
    cocaine distribution/money laundering
  • U.S. v. Doe

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    government compelled to write 5K1.1 letter
    Description:
    Court assignment. Defendant agreed to cooperate with government when represented by predecessor counsel. Government refused to write 5K letter because defendant withheld information. Successfully argued to Magistrate that government's refusal was in bad faith. Government then agreed to write 5K letter.
  • People v. Alston

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Sentence reduced from 11 1/2 to 4 years
    Description:
    Client convicted after trial of robbery in Queens County after having pleaded guilty in Nassau County to separate crime. Queens judge imposed 10 year sentence consecutively with 1 1/2 year Nassau Sentence. Appellate Division, Second Department reduced 10 year sentence to four years to run concurrently with Nassau sentence.
  • People v. Jackson

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Outcome:
    Not guilty
    Description:
    Attorney charged with extortion
  • TPR v. Fischer

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Sep 08, 2011
    Outcome:
    Dismissal affirmed
    Description:
    Holding company, limited partnership, and general partner brought action alleging fraud in connection with stock transfer and Canadian real estate venture. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. Firm represented defendant-respondent Sharon on appeal in the Appellate Division, First Department
  • U.S. v. Cartwright

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Oct 05, 2011
    Outcome:
    Habeas petition granted
    Description:
    Christopher Cartwright, a successful and respected businessman working in the aviation field, pleaded guilty to an honest services fraud conspiracy in the District of Maryland (Baltimore Division) and received probation. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010), Levitt & Kaizer and Raymond Granger and Associates filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that the conduct to which Mr. Cartwright pleaded guilty was no longer a crime. The government acknowledged that the habeas petition should be granted and the parties entered into an agreement to affectuate that result. The Petition was granted by the Hon. William M. Nickerson
  • United States v. Bryan

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Nov 03, 2011
    Outcome:
    Habeas granted; sentence vacated; defendant re-sentenced to 10-year mandatory minimum (time served)
    Description:
    We were appointed by district court judge to represent client in pending habeas after judge discerned possible flaw in prior felony proceedings. Government eventually agreed with us that client's mandatory minimum 20-year sentence should be vacated and that he should be re-sentenced pursuant under the Fair Sentencing Act utilizing new mandatory minimum of ten years. Court in fact imposed 10-year sentence, which client has already served.