A Word from Jason Goldman
The case of United States v. Peter Clyde Hall stands as a striking example of how federal prosecutors in Manhattan pursue even the most unexpected defendants with relentless rigor.
The Hall case resonated as both a cautionary tale of how charismatic figures can leverage reputation for criminal gain and as a testament to SDNY’s aggressive pursuit and prosecution — regardless of a defendant’s age or past fame.
Clyde “Peter” Hall — once a professional football player in the NFL — became the target of a major federal narcotics investigation in the Southern District of New York. However, this investigation took place only after Mr. Hall, due to his age and health complications, was released from federal prison while serving a sentence for a white-collar, non-violent crime.
After Mr. Hall’s re-arrest and subsequent pre-trial incarceration at the metropolitan detention center, our office was hired to take over his defense and find a creative way out of a seemingly impossible task to have him released from prison rather than serving the rest of his life behind bars.
The Trial
While on home confinement under the CARES Act (after serving time for a historic financial fraud conviction), Hall was arrested by federal authorities in Manhattan and charged with narcotics distribution for allegedly possessing with intent to distribute over five kilograms of suspected cocaine and arranging to sell it to a confidential.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY, Hall was found with approximately seven kilograms of suspected cocaine at his New York residence and approached to conduct a drug deal — a significant quantity that triggers the most serious federal drug penalties. Under federal law, the narcotics distribution charge he faced carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum of life imprisonment, reflecting Congress’s stringent sentencing framework for large-quantity drug offenses.
Rather than going to trial on the most severe possible exposure, Hall ultimately entered a plea agreement in federal court in New York. He admitted to a lesser offense of intent to distribute a controlled substance containing fentanyl (40 grams).
The Legal Challenge
Most notably, and as outlined in painstaking detail in the attached federal sentencing memorandum which we filed on Mr. Hall’s behalf, he was facing consecutive sentences for both his new matter and for the time that he still owed on his prior fraud conviction.
A consecutive sentence is where one sentence is served and the person does not earn credit during that time for a second sentence. Hence, two sentences of five years’ each, to run consecutive, means the individual serves ten total years. A more desirable outcome, of course, is a concurrent sentence, where both sentences run together (in the above example, the individual would serve only five years total).
Our office conducted a deep dive into the legislative history and intent behind the different sentencing formats. This analysis, coupled with an audit of Clyde’s life and his current age (and how that factored into his conduct), created one of the more persuasive federal sentencing arguments than those typically observed.
Sentencing Strategy and Result
Our argument was crisp, compelling, and persuasive at sentencing. Indeed, we were facing an extremely difficult Court and prosecution, yet we put together a credible argument and an easy to follow analysis of the different sentencing formats as well as the legislative intent behind them. This caused the Court itself to take a break during the sentencing arguments (rarely seen), likely in order to reconsider the Court’s pre-determination for Mr. Hall.
Ultimately, we prevailed and the Court agreed to run his sentences concurrent, allowing Mr. Hall to gain credit for time-served on his white-collar case and to re-enter society and rejoin his close-knit family much sooner than originally expected.