Man Who Led Drug-and-Robery Scheme Around Brooklyn and New York City Arrested on Racketeering and Murder Charges 

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have unsealed a superseding indictment charging Jalen Teague and others with murder and racketeering in connection with a deadly drug-assisted robbery scheme that spanned multiple states, according to the Department of Justice. Authorities allege Teague directed an organized group that provided female associates with the powerful incapacitating drug GHB and instructed them to target unsuspecting men at bars and clubs, drug their drinks without consent, and then rob them of valuables. The indictment further alleges that the enterprise carried out more than 100 GHB-assisted robberies between late 2022 and mid-2024 and that one victim died after being poisoned during such an encounter.

Federal prosecutors often pursue complex racketeering and homicide investigations with significant resources, especially when organized schemes result in serious injury or death. Allegations tied to coordinated robbery and drug distribution networks can quickly escalate into federal criminal charges in Brooklyn and throughout the Southern District of New York. These cases frequently involve multi-agency investigations, digital evidence analysis, and detailed financial tracking designed to establish enterprise activity. As a result, individuals accused of participating in such operations face substantial legal exposure. At Petrus Law, we understand how overwhelming high-profile federal prosecutions can become, particularly when racketeering and drug conspiracy allegations intersect. We work diligently to protect the rights of those facing serious federal criminal charges in Brooklyn. Call us today at (646) 733-4711 for immediate legal guidance. 

Why Trust an Attorney to Respond Quickly to Federal Criminal Charges in Brooklyn 

Federal criminal charges in Brooklyn demand immediate attention, and the team at Petrus Law acts swiftly to protect our clients from the earliest stages of an investigation. We understand that federal cases often involve aggressive tactics, including search warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and coordinated arrests. Therefore, early legal intervention can make a meaningful difference in how the case develops. By stepping in quickly, we work to safeguard constitutional rights, evaluate the government’s evidence, and prevent missteps that could negatively affect the defense. Prompt action allows us to begin building a strategic response before formal charges fully progress.

We also recognize that federal prosecutions typically involve extensive investigative resources and experienced prosecutors. Our team carefully analyzes charging documents, reviews discovery materials, and identifies weaknesses in the government’s theory of the case. In addition, we communicate directly with federal authorities when appropriate to clarify issues or challenge unsupported allegations. Through proactive preparation and disciplined legal strategy, we position our clients to confront complex federal proceedings with confidence and clarity.

How Federal Criminal Charges Involving Robbery Are Prosecuted in Brooklyn

Federal criminal charges involving robbery in Brooklyn often arise when the alleged conduct crosses state lines, affects interstate commerce, or connects to organized criminal activity. Unlike state robbery cases, federal prosecutions typically involve broader conspiracy allegations and enhanced penalties. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York frequently pursue robbery charges under statutes such as the Hobbs Act. These cases may include allegations of coordinated planning, weapons possession, or racketeering activity. Understanding how federal authorities build and prosecute these cases helps defendants anticipate the legal challenges ahead.

The Role of the Hobbs Act in Federal Robbery Cases

The Hobbs Act allows federal prosecutors to pursue robbery charges when the conduct affects interstate or foreign commerce. Even minimal effects on commerce may satisfy this requirement under federal law. For example, robberies targeting businesses that purchase goods from out of state often qualify. Prosecutors must prove both the robbery elements and the interstate commerce connection. This dual requirement distinguishes federal robbery charges from many state-level offenses.

Proving Impact on Interstate Commerce

Federal prosecutors often rely on business records, supply chain documentation, and financial transactions to establish interstate commerce involvement. Courts have interpreted this element broadly, which gives prosecutors significant flexibility. However, the government must still present sufficient evidence to satisfy statutory requirements. Defense counsel may examine whether the alleged impact meets legal standards. Careful analysis of this element can influence pretrial motions and defense strategy.

Conspiracy and Racketeering Allegations

Many federal robbery prosecutions in Brooklyn involve conspiracy charges in addition to substantive robbery counts. Prosecutors may allege that multiple individuals agreed to commit robberies as part of an organized plan. In more complex cases, authorities may pursue racketeering charges under the RICO statute. These allegations significantly increase sentencing exposure and broaden the scope of admissible evidence. Defendants must prepare for a multifaceted prosecution strategy.

Use of Cooperating Witnesses

Federal robbery cases frequently involve cooperating witnesses who agree to testify in exchange for reduced sentences. These witnesses may provide detailed accounts of planning discussions and alleged roles within the group. Prosecutors often rely heavily on such testimony to establish conspiracy elements. Defense attorneys typically scrutinize cooperation agreements and credibility issues. Effective cross-examination can highlight motives to provide favorable testimony to the government.

Investigative Tools Used by Federal Authorities

Federal agencies often employ extensive investigative tools when pursuing robbery cases. Surveillance operations, wiretaps, and search warrants may form the backbone of the government’s evidence. Authorities may also analyze cellphone data, financial transfers, and social media communications. This comprehensive approach allows prosecutors to present a detailed narrative of alleged criminal conduct. Challenging the legality of investigative methods can become a central defense focus.

Search Warrants and Suppression Motions

Evidence obtained through search warrants must comply with constitutional standards. If investigators lacked probable cause or exceeded the warrant’s scope, the defense may file suppression motions. Successful suppression can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case. Courts carefully examine whether law enforcement followed proper procedures. Strategic litigation of these issues plays a critical role in federal robbery prosecutions.

Sentencing Considerations in Federal Robbery Cases

Federal robbery convictions often carry substantial prison sentences, especially when firearms are involved. Sentencing guidelines consider factors such as the value of property taken and the use of force. Firearm enhancements under federal law may impose mandatory consecutive sentences. Judges must calculate guideline ranges before imposing a sentence. Early case evaluation allows defense counsel to assess potential sentencing exposure and develop mitigation strategies.

The Difference Between State and Federal Robbery Charges in Brooklyn

Understanding the difference between state and federal robbery charges in Brooklyn is critical for anyone facing criminal allegations. Although both systems prosecute theft involving force or intimidation, the procedures and penalties can vary significantly. Jurisdiction determines which court handles the case and which laws apply. In many situations, the same underlying conduct could potentially trigger either state or federal prosecution. Therefore, recognizing these distinctions helps defendants better understand their legal exposure.

Jurisdiction and Legal Authority

State robbery charges are prosecuted under New York Penal Law and handled in New York State courts. These cases typically involve local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys. In contrast, federal robbery charges are prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office in federal court. Federal jurisdiction often applies when the alleged robbery affects interstate commerce or involves federal property. This jurisdictional difference shapes how the case proceeds from the beginning.

When Federal Jurisdiction Applies

Federal robbery charges frequently arise under the Hobbs Act when prosecutors allege interference with interstate commerce. Even a minimal connection to out-of-state goods or services may satisfy this requirement. Additionally, robberies involving banks insured by the FDIC automatically fall under federal jurisdiction. Federal agencies such as the FBI often lead these investigations. This broader scope can significantly increase the complexity of the case.

Differences in Sentencing Exposure

Sentencing outcomes can differ substantially between state and federal robbery convictions. New York State robbery offenses are classified by degree, with penalties depending on factors such as weapon use or physical injury. Federal robbery convictions, however, are governed by federal sentencing guidelines and statutory enhancements. These guidelines calculate offense levels based on specific conduct and criminal history. As a result, federal sentences may be longer and less flexible.

Mandatory Minimums and Firearm Enhancements

Federal law imposes strict penalties when a firearm is brandished or discharged during a robbery. Certain firearm offenses carry mandatory consecutive sentences that must be served in addition to the robbery sentence. New York State law also penalizes weapon use, yet federal firearm statutes often result in harsher outcomes. These enhancements can dramatically increase total prison exposure. Careful evaluation of weapon allegations becomes essential in federal cases.

Procedural Differences Between Courts

State and federal courts follow distinct procedural rules that affect case timelines and strategy. Federal cases typically move through grand jury indictment before arraignment. Discovery practices, motion schedules, and evidentiary standards may differ from those in state court. Federal prosecutors often rely on extensive investigative records compiled over months. Consequently, defense preparation must account for broader evidence review.

Pretrial Detention and Bail Standards

Federal courts apply different standards when determining whether a defendant remains detained before trial. Judges evaluate risk of flight and danger to the community under federal statutes. In certain robbery cases, particularly those involving firearms, detention is more likely. State courts may apply separate bail reform considerations. Understanding these differences helps defendants anticipate early procedural outcomes.

Investigative Resources and Case Scope

Federal robbery prosecutions often involve multiple agencies working together to build the case. These investigations may include wiretaps, financial analysis, and digital surveillance. State cases generally rely on local police departments and more limited investigative tools. The scope of evidence in federal cases can therefore be broader and more technical. Defense strategies must adapt to this expanded investigative approach.

Use of Conspiracy Allegations

Federal prosecutors frequently pair robbery charges with conspiracy counts. This allows the government to introduce evidence of planning discussions and alleged group involvement. In state court, conspiracy may also apply, yet federal conspiracy statutes often carry greater sentencing implications. These allegations can expand liability beyond direct participation in the robbery. Addressing conspiracy exposure requires careful legal analysis.

Long-Term Consequences of Conviction

Both state and federal robbery convictions carry serious collateral consequences. However, federal convictions may involve additional supervision conditions and long-term restrictions. Immigration consequences, firearm prohibitions, and professional licensing issues may arise under either system. The federal system often includes supervised release following incarceration. Understanding these long-term implications is essential when evaluating defense options.

Strategic Considerations for Defense

The choice of venue significantly influences defense strategy and potential outcomes. Federal court procedures require familiarity with sentencing guidelines and complex evidentiary rules. State court defense may involve different negotiation practices and trial dynamics. Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each system helps shape an effective legal approach. Early and informed defense planning remains critical in both jurisdictions.

How Federal Sentencing Guidelines Impact Robbery Cases

Federal sentencing guidelines play a central role in determining potential penalties after a robbery conviction in federal court. Unlike many state systems, federal judges must calculate a guideline range before imposing a sentence. Although judges retain discretion, the guidelines heavily influence the final outcome. Therefore, understanding how these calculations work becomes critical in robbery prosecutions. Even small adjustments in offense level can significantly affect total prison exposure.

Determining the Base Offense Level

Every federal robbery case begins with a base offense level established under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This starting point reflects the core elements of the alleged conduct. From there, the court applies specific offense characteristics that may increase or decrease the level. The higher the final offense level, the longer the recommended sentencing range. Careful review of these calculations remains essential throughout the case.

Enhancements for Use of Force or Injury

The guidelines increase offense levels when the robbery involves physical injury or credible threats of violence. If a victim suffers bodily harm, additional points may apply depending on the severity of the injury. Courts also consider whether the defendant restrained a victim during the offense. These enhancements can substantially raise the recommended sentence. Challenging unsupported allegations becomes critical in minimizing exposure.

Firearm and Weapon Enhancements

Federal robbery cases frequently involve allegations of firearm possession or brandishing. When a firearm is used during a crime of violence, separate federal statutes may impose mandatory consecutive sentences. These penalties apply in addition to the robbery guideline range. Even the display of a weapon can trigger substantial enhancements. As a result, weapon allegations often become one of the most significant sentencing factors.

Brandishing Versus Discharging a Firearm

The guidelines distinguish between merely possessing, brandishing, and discharging a firearm. Each category carries different sentencing consequences. Discharging a firearm during a robbery can dramatically increase mandatory prison time. Courts must apply these statutory requirements if proven. Accurate classification of the alleged conduct therefore becomes essential in sentencing proceedings.

Role in the Offense Adjustments

Federal sentencing also considers a defendant’s role within the alleged robbery scheme. Leaders or organizers of criminal activity may receive upward adjustments. Conversely, individuals with minimal participation may qualify for a mitigating role reduction. These distinctions can shift the guideline range in meaningful ways. Establishing the defendant’s actual level of involvement becomes a key strategic focus.

Acceptance of Responsibility Reductions

Defendants who accept responsibility for their conduct may qualify for a reduction in offense level. This reduction often applies when a defendant pleads guilty and demonstrates remorse. However, the timing and circumstances of that plea can affect eligibility. Prosecutors typically recommend whether the reduction should apply. Strategic decision-making regarding plea discussions directly influences sentencing exposure.

Criminal History Category Considerations

In addition to offense level, the court calculates a criminal history category based on prior convictions. The guidelines use a point system to classify defendants from Category I to Category VI. Higher criminal history categories result in longer recommended sentences. Even older convictions can affect this calculation. Careful review of prior record accuracy remains important before sentencing.

Impact of Prior Violent or Drug Offenses

Certain prior convictions may increase sentencing exposure beyond standard calculations. Repeat offenders may face career offender enhancements under federal law. These enhancements can substantially increase both offense level and criminal history category. As a result, sentencing ranges may rise dramatically. Evaluating whether prior convictions qualify under federal definitions becomes a critical defense issue.

Judicial Discretion and Variances

Although the guidelines strongly influence sentencing, federal judges retain discretion to impose variances. Judges may consider factors such as personal history, family responsibilities, and rehabilitation efforts. These considerations arise under the broader sentencing factors outlined in federal law. Persuasive mitigation arguments can support a downward variance from the guideline range. Effective advocacy at sentencing can therefore meaningfully affect the final outcome.

How Conspiracy Charges Increase Exposure in Federal Robbery Cases

Conspiracy allegations can significantly expand the scope and severity of federal robbery prosecutions in Brooklyn. Unlike a standalone robbery charge, conspiracy focuses on an alleged agreement to commit a crime rather than the completed act itself. Federal prosecutors often use conspiracy statutes to broaden liability and introduce additional evidence. As a result, defendants may face exposure that extends beyond their individual conduct. Understanding how conspiracy law operates is critical when evaluating federal criminal charges involving robbery.

The Legal Elements of Federal Conspiracy

To prove conspiracy, federal prosecutors must establish that two or more individuals agreed to commit a robbery and that at least one overt act furthered that agreement. The government does not need to prove that the robbery was successfully completed. Instead, the existence of an agreement combined with some step toward execution may satisfy the statute. This lower threshold can make conspiracy charges easier to pursue than substantive robbery counts. Consequently, individuals may face prosecution even with limited alleged involvement.

Agreement Versus Direct Participation

A defendant does not need to personally commit the robbery to face conspiracy liability. Federal law permits conviction based on participation in planning or facilitating the offense. For example, alleged involvement in discussions, transportation arrangements, or communication coordination may be cited as evidence. Prosecutors often rely on circumstantial evidence to demonstrate agreement. Careful analysis of communications and intent becomes essential in defending these allegations.

Expanded Liability for Acts of Co-Conspirators

One of the most significant consequences of a conspiracy charge is the doctrine of co-conspirator liability. Under federal law, defendants may be held responsible for reasonably foreseeable acts committed by other members of the alleged conspiracy. This principle can dramatically increase sentencing exposure. Even if a defendant did not personally use a weapon, firearm enhancements may apply if a co-conspirator did. As a result, conspiracy allegations often raise the stakes considerably.

Firearm Enhancements and Violent Conduct

If one participant allegedly brandished or discharged a firearm during the robbery, federal statutes may impose mandatory penalties on other alleged conspirators. Courts evaluate whether the conduct was reasonably foreseeable within the scope of the agreement. This analysis can extend liability well beyond direct action. Consequently, defendants must address both their own alleged conduct and the actions of others. Challenging foreseeability becomes a critical component of defense strategy.

Broader Admissibility of Evidence

Conspiracy charges often allow prosecutors to introduce a wider range of evidence at trial. Statements made by one alleged conspirator may be admitted against others under federal evidentiary rules. Additionally, prosecutors may present background information about the alleged enterprise to establish motive and intent. This expanded evidentiary scope can influence how juries perceive the case. Strategic objections and evidentiary challenges play an important role in limiting unfair prejudice.

Use of Cooperating Witness Testimony

Federal conspiracy cases frequently rely on cooperating witnesses who agree to testify in exchange for reduced sentences. These individuals may provide detailed accounts of alleged planning discussions and roles within the group. However, cooperation agreements can create incentives to shift blame or exaggerate involvement. Defense counsel typically scrutinizes credibility and motives during cross-examination. Exposing inconsistencies may weaken the government’s theory of agreement.

Increased Sentencing Exposure and Strategic Implications

Conspiracy convictions carry penalties similar to the underlying robbery offense, which means exposure can remain substantial even without proof of completed robbery. When combined with enhancements for weapons or leadership roles, sentencing ranges may increase significantly. Federal sentencing guidelines treat conspiracy as a serious offense with meaningful consequences. Therefore, early strategic evaluation becomes essential in managing risk. Addressing conspiracy allegations effectively can influence plea negotiations, motion practice, and potential trial outcomes.

Why Federal Criminal Charges Demand Action in the New York City Area 

Federal prosecutions move quickly and carry severe penalties, which makes immediate action essential for anyone accused in the New York City area. Unlike many state cases, federal investigations often develop over months before an arrest occurs. By the time charges are filed, prosecutors may already have gathered extensive evidence. Therefore, a delayed response can significantly limit available defense options. Early legal intervention allows defendants to protect their rights and respond strategically.

Federal Investigations Often Begin Long Before Arrest

Federal agencies such as the FBI, DEA, and Homeland Security frequently conduct lengthy investigations before making charges public. These investigations may involve surveillance, confidential informants, and recorded communications. As a result, defendants sometimes face indictments supported by substantial documentation. Understanding this timeline helps explain why immediate legal counsel is critical. Prompt representation allows attorneys to assess exposure and begin countering the government’s narrative.

The Role of Grand Jury Proceedings

Federal criminal charges typically originate from grand jury indictments rather than simple arrest complaints. Prosecutors present evidence to a grand jury without the defense present. This process allows the government to secure formal charges before the accused has an opportunity to respond. Challenging weaknesses in the indictment requires careful legal analysis after charges are filed. Experienced counsel can evaluate whether procedural or evidentiary issues exist.

Sentencing Exposure Is Often Significant

Federal offenses frequently carry mandatory minimum sentences and strict sentencing guidelines. Drug conspiracy, racketeering, and firearm offenses may expose defendants to lengthy prison terms. Judges must consider federal sentencing guidelines that weigh factors such as criminal history and offense severity. Consequently, even a first-time defendant may face substantial penalties. Early case evaluation helps identify opportunities to reduce sentencing exposure.

Mandatory Minimum Penalties and Enhancements

Certain federal statutes impose mandatory minimum sentences that limit judicial discretion. Prosecutors may also seek sentence enhancements based on alleged aggravating factors. These enhancements can dramatically increase potential prison time. Careful review of charging documents and statutory language becomes essential. A strategic defense may challenge whether enhancements properly apply.

Federal Prosecutors Have Extensive Resources

United States Attorney’s Offices have access to significant investigative and legal resources. Federal prosecutors often collaborate with multiple agencies to build complex cases. This coordinated effort can make defending against federal criminal charges more demanding. However, thorough preparation and detailed case analysis can expose weaknesses in the government’s position. Strong advocacy levels the playing field.

Complex Evidence and Digital Forensics

Modern federal cases frequently rely on digital evidence such as phone data, financial records, and electronic communications. Prosecutors may present forensic analysis to support their allegations. Defense counsel must carefully review how this evidence was collected and interpreted. Suppression motions may arise if investigators violated constitutional protections. Detailed examination of digital records can reveal inconsistencies or overreach.

Early Legal Strategy Shapes Case Outcomes

Decisions made in the initial stages of a federal case often influence the final result. Statements given to investigators, consent to searches, or informal discussions with agents can carry lasting consequences. Therefore, defendants should avoid engaging with authorities without legal representation. Early defense planning allows attorneys to manage communications and protect critical rights. Proactive strategy improves the likelihood of a favorable resolution.

Contact an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Brooklyn Today

When you’re facing serious criminal allegations, securing experienced legal representation can significantly affect the direction and outcome of your case. At Petrus Law, we understand how overwhelming it can feel to confront state or federal prosecution, especially when your freedom and reputation are at stake. We take the time to review every detail of the charges, assess the strength of the evidence, and develop a defense strategy tailored to the specific facts of your case. Our approach focuses on protecting your rights, challenging procedural errors, and holding the government to its burden of proof at every stage.

We recognize that criminal cases move quickly, and early decisions often carry long-term consequences. That is why we remain proactive in communicating with prosecutors, negotiating when appropriate, and preparing thoroughly for court proceedings when necessary. Our team prioritizes clear communication so you understand your options and feel confident in the strategy we pursue together. At Petrus Law, we stand beside our clients from initial investigation through resolution, providing steady guidance and dedicated advocacy throughout the process. Call us today at (646) 733-4711 or reach out online to discuss your case and learn how we can protect your rights.