When the integrity of an international investigation came under scrutiny in federal court, Descalzo Law aggressively questioned whether critical evidence had been properly collected, preserved, and examined—underscoring the importance of due process in one of the world’s most closely watched criminal prosecutions.
Overview of the Case
Descalzo Law represents a defendant in the federal prosecution arising from the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse, a case that has attracted international attention and involved investigations spanning multiple countries, agencies, and legal systems.
During the proceedings in the Southern District of Florida, testimony revealed significant questions regarding the collection and preservation of evidence at the crime scene in Haiti. The defense focused on whether investigators followed accepted forensic practices and whether the government’s conclusions were supported by a complete and reliable investigation.
The case serves as a powerful example of the critical role defense counsel plays in testing the strength of the government’s evidence—particularly in international prosecutions where the stakes are extraordinarily high.
The Situation
At trial, FBI personnel testified regarding their involvement in the investigation into President Moïse’s assassination and the steps taken after arriving in Haiti.
According to testimony, investigators did not enter the crime scene until approximately six weeks after the assassination had occurred. By that time, numerous individuals had already accessed the residence, including Haitian authorities, security personnel, and others involved in the aftermath of the attack.
The testimony further revealed that:
- No blood evidence was collected by FBI investigators.
- No fingerprints or DNA were recovered from the crime scene by the FBI.
- Investigators did not conduct an independent forensic examination of certain areas of the residence.
- Various items remained inside the home despite questions regarding potential evidentiary value.
- The original crime scene had already been processed by Haitian authorities before U.S. investigators arrived.
These circumstances raised important questions regarding the completeness of the investigation and whether opportunities to preserve critical evidence had been lost.
The Defense Strategy
Descalzo Law approached this phase of the case by focusing on one of the most fundamental principles of criminal defense: the reliability of the evidence.
The defense strategy included:
- Examining the timeline of the investigation and emphasizing the significant delay before federal investigators accessed the crime scene.
- Questioning whether accepted forensic procedures had been followed.
- Highlighting the absence of physical evidence connecting defendants to the government’s theory of the case.
- Exploring whether the crime scene had been compromised through repeated access by multiple individuals.
- Challenging assumptions that investigative conclusions necessarily reflected complete factual certainty.
- Demonstrating that unanswered questions and investigative gaps are relevant when determining whether the government has met its burden of proof.
Through cross-examination, the defense sought to illustrate that jurors are entitled to consider not only the evidence presented, but also the evidence that was never collected, preserved, or tested. admitted participants in broader misconduct, the defense worked to ensure that the jury carefully weighed credibility, motive, and the absence of direct evidence linking Ms. Díaz to the government’s theory of bribery.
What Was the Result
At the time of this Featured Matter, the proceedings remain ongoing and no final determination has been reached regarding all defendants involved in the case.
Descalzo Law continues to advocate zealously on behalf of its client, carefully examining the government’s evidence and ensuring that the constitutional guarantees of due process and a fair trial remain at the forefront of the proceedings.
In matters of this magnitude, the defense’s role is not to accept investigative conclusions at face value—it is to ask difficult questions and demand reliable answers.
Attorney Perspective
“A criminal case is only as strong as the investigation behind it. When evidence is missing, forensic opportunities are lost, or procedures are called into question, it is the responsibility of the defense to bring those issues before the jury. The burden always remains with the government.”
International prosecutions often involve logistical obstacles and complicated factual circumstances. But complexity does not lessen the requirement that allegations be supported by competent, reliable evidence.
At Descalzo Law, we believe that rigorous cross-examination and careful scrutiny of investigative practices are essential safeguards within the justice system.
— Marissel Descalzo
Managing Partner
What This Case Demonstrates
This matter highlights several important principles about sophisticated criminal defense:
- Thorough investigations matter, particularly in high-profile cases.
- Delays in evidence collection can create legitimate questions regarding reliability and preservation.
- The absence of forensic evidence may be relevant to evaluating the strength of the government’s case.
- Cross-examination remains one of the most powerful tools for testing investigative conclusions.
- International prosecutions require attorneys capable of navigating complex factual records and challenging assumptions.
- Constitutional protections apply equally in cases involving intense media attention and global scrutiny.
Descalzo Law is experienced in defending clients facing complex federal prosecutions involving international investigations, conspiracy allegations, white-collar offenses, and matters of significant public interest..
Disclaimer
The information contained in this Featured Matter is based on publicly reported court proceedings and testimony presented during trial. The proceedings remain ongoing, and allegations are not evidence of guilt. Every case is unique, and prior representations do not guarantee similar outcomes in future matters. This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Individuals facing criminal investigations or charges should seek legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.
