News Article
Mark Schamel and Sarah Miller Earn Dismissal of Charges Against D.C. Executive
February 8, 2012
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Womble Carlyle white collar criminal defense attorneys Mark Schamel and Sarah Miller have persuaded prosecutors to drop a rape case against a D.C. real estate executive.
The executive was charged following an after-hours party at a Georgetown mansion in early 2010. In April, 2011, Schamel successfully fought probable cause at a hearing before Judge Gerald Fisher. Nonetheless, the United States Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia opened a grand jury investigation. Despite indicating that they would indict, on February 1, 2012, Schamel persuaded the U.S. Attorney’s office to drop all charges against the executive, saving him from a trial where he would have faced up to 30 years in prison, as well as the related negative publicity.
Mark Schamel and Sarah Miller are members of Womble Carlyle’s Government Investigations/White Collar Criminal Defense Team. They practice out of the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.
The executive was charged following an after-hours party at a Georgetown mansion in early 2010. In April, 2011, Schamel successfully fought probable cause at a hearing before Judge Gerald Fisher. Nonetheless, the United States Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia opened a grand jury investigation. Despite indicating that they would indict, on February 1, 2012, Schamel persuaded the U.S. Attorney’s office to drop all charges against the executive, saving him from a trial where he would have faced up to 30 years in prison, as well as the related negative publicity.
Mark Schamel and Sarah Miller are members of Womble Carlyle’s Government Investigations/White Collar Criminal Defense Team. They practice out of the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.
This document is intended as an informational reminder and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions or would like to discuss a particular situation, please contact Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP. The purpose of this article is to provide general information about significant legal developments and should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts and circumstances.