RICHARD F. DELLA FERA

Richard F. Della Fera was born in Wilmington, Delaware, November 19, 1963. He received his undergraduate degree from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. (B.A., Classical Guitar, 1985), and went on to attend the St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami, Florida on an academic scholarship. While in law school, Mr. Della Fera was appointed Senior Article Editor for the St. Thomas University Law Review, was named in “Who’s Who of American Law Students”, and was elected to membership in the honorary law fraternity, Phi Delta Phi. He was also a member of the law school’s Moot Court Board. Mr. Della Fera graduated cum laude, in the top 5% of his graduating class (J.D., 1995) .

Following his admission to practice law in 1995, Mr. Della Fera rapidly established himself as an effective trial and appellate attorney in both criminal and civil practice. In 1996, he prevailed in his first civil trial in the case of Simmons v. Tucker, involving the misappropriation of an elderly woman’s life savings by her niece. Mr. Della Fera convinced the jury that the niece was not entitled to the funds and was able to recover the money for his client.

In his first appeal, Mr. Della Fera prevailed in the case of Abreau v. Cobb, 670 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Mr. Della Fera obtained a reversal of the lower court’s ruling regarding a complex election law issue involving a recall petition of Miami-Dade County Commissioner Maurice Ferre. Most notable in this matter is the fact that Mr. Della Fera’s opposing counsel was Raoul G. Cantero, now a Justice on the Florida Supreme Court.

Mr. Della Fera is also established as a top-flight criminal trial and appellate litigator as well. In the case of United States v. Burgos, 256 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2001), Mr. Della Fera argued before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia on behalf of a young mother who received the maximum guideline sentence because she refused to give information regarding her husband. Mr. Della Fera convinced the Court that his client’s sentence was illegally imposed by the sentencing judge. This case is notable, as it was highlighted at a national criminal law seminar as one of a fraction of cases which will have a positive, long-lasting effect for all criminal defendants in the years to come.

Mr. Della Fera’s federal criminal appellate work is not limited to the Eleventh Circuit, which encompasses Florida, Georgia and Alabama. For example, Mr. Della Fera argued the case of United States v. Richard Hodge, 321 F.3d 429 (3d Cir. 2003), before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In that case, the defendant was charged in federal court with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance analogue. The government had argued that the defendant’s sale of candle wax to an undercover officer claiming it to be crack cocaine was a violation of the statute prohibiting the sale of controlled substance analogue. The client was convicted at trial and sentenced to eleven years imprisonment. Mr. Della Fera was able to show the Third Circuit on appeal that the legislative history of the statute clearly did not evidence an intent of Congress to criminalize counterfeit substances through the controlled substance analogue statute, a statute meant to criminalize the sale of so-called “designer drugs.” Mr. Della Fera obtained not only the freedom of his client but the restoration of his civil rights.

Mr. Della Fera has also won hard-fought battles against the government on issues of forfeiture of property as well. In United States v. Pease, 331 F.3d 809 (11th Cir. 2003), Mr. Della Fera represented the family of a convicted defendant who had their property seized. Mr. Della Fera argued to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida that the procedures followed by the Government were unlawful and, as a result, his clients were entitled to a return of their property. After the district court ruled against Mr. Della Fera’s clients, he sought an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. In its opinion, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with Mr. Della Fera, that the government had not perfected its forfeiture against the innocent third party family members. Mr. Della Fera was thus able to win the return of numerous vehicles and other property for his clients.

In addition to appeals, Mr. Della Fera has also successfully fought the government at trial. In one case, the government charged twelve individuals in federal court in Miami, Florida with racketeering for their alleged roles in a tourist robbery ring. Mr. Della Fera represented Orenthal “O.J.” Smith, one of the so-called “Miami 12." Smith was charged with numerous robberies as well as an armed carjacking. The case received extensive news coverage as Miami had numerous highly-publicized tourist robberies for years prior to the filing of the government’s indictment. The trial lasted four and a half months during which Mr. Della Fera uncovered evidence to show that a fingerprint found in the car that was the subject of the armed carjacking belonged to another individual who was, at that time, serving a state prison sentence for another armed carjacking. This was a crack in the government’s case that shed doubt on the entire prosecution. After two months of jury deliberations, the government was unsuccessful in obtaining a single conviction.

Mr. Della Fera is also a highly respected attorney for his skills in state court. In one case, Mr. Della Fera represented a former heavy weight boxer accused of sexually assaulting his step-daughter. The State believed that its case was “open and shut” because the defendant “confessed” on videotape at the police station. Mr. Della Fera successfully discredited the alleged confession before the jury. The defendant was found not guilty of sexual assault and thus avoided the stigma of not only a felony conviction but a designation as a sexual predator which could have resulted in his involuntary civil commitment for an indefinite period of time.          

Mr. Della Fera is committed to insuring that persons accused of crimes are entitled to fairness and due process. In Anderson v. State, 786 So.2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), Mr. Della Fera took on the case of an individual who was denied the ability to present an expert witness at his trial. Mr. Della Fera successfully argued to the Fourth District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida, which found that the defendant was denied his constitutional rights. The conviction was reversed.

Mr. Della Fera has also been successful in the area of prisoner’s rights litigation. Mr. Della Fera was able to reverse the dismissal of a civil rights complaint on behalf of an incarcerated individual. Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256 (2002). This individual had his complaint summarily dismissed by a federal judge. Mr. Della Fera appealed the ruling, believing that the prisoner had a right to his day in court. Mr. Della Fera passionately argued the prisoner’s case to the court of appeals. In a unanimous decision, the court found that the prisoner was indeed entitled to pursue his case, and that the judge’s summary dismissal of the complaint was in error.

In March of 2008, Mr. Della Fera represented Lee Macon, charged with first degree murder. Mr. Macon shot and killed his unarmed neighbor during a dispute over the property line dividing their properties. The national and local press vilified Mr. Macon as the "lawn feud shooter" and dozens of pundits expounded upon the "lawlessness in our society" and the "senseless killing of an unarmed man." Mr. Della Fera met with the client in jail and discovered that it was a clear case of self-defense despite the fact that the neighbor was unarmed. Mr. Della Fera investigated the case and discovered numerous witnesses who could testify not only to the act of self-defense but also to the ongoing dispute between the two men wherein the neighbor was always the aggressor and continually escalating the situation. Mr. Della Fera negotiated with the State Attorneys Office to allow his client and his defense witnesses to testify before the grand jury. After less than ten minutes of deliberation, the grand jury declined to issue an indictment and Mr. Macon was freed. Mr. Della Fera then arranged for the local news to cover Mr. Macon's triumphant release from jail and for the Miami Herald to print a front page article declaring that Mr. Macon had been vindicated.

In February of 2009, Mr. Della Fera won a criminal appeal in the case of State v. Jelves, 7 So.3d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). In that case, the client, a non-U.S. citizen, was charged with growing marijuana in his home. Mr. Della Fera handled the matter from the inception of the case and won a motion to suppress the search of the client's home convincing the judge that his client's supposed consent was involuntary and there was no other legitimate basis for the police to search the home. The State appealed the judge's granting of Mr. Della Fera's motion. Mr. Della Fera handled the appeal and upheld the judge's decision. This result was most favorable to his client because, in addition to saving the client from serving any jail time, the client avoided certain deportation to his home country that would have resulted in the event of a drug conviction.

Mr. Della Fera’s pursuit of involvement with and service to the community is not limited to the courtroom. Mr. Della Fera is active in civic affairs and has served as counsel to homeowners’ associations in Broward County, Florida. Mr. Della Fera has appeared before zoning boards on behalf of homeowners who are unprepared and unable to speak for themselves. Mr. Della Fera believes that the old adage, “you can’t fight city hall,” is a myth, and that with the proper preparation and passion even, the meekest among us can achieve positive results. Mr. Della Fera is not afraid to stand up to the government in any forum.  His countless successes attest to that. Mr. Della Fera also maintains active involvement with his musical roots, playing locally in South Florida with his classic rock band, “Fifth Circuit”.

Attorney Admissions:

• Florida Bar, 1995
• United States Supreme Court
• United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 1996
• United States Courts of Appeals, Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits

Pro Hac Vice Admissions:

• United States District Court, District of Columbia
• United States District Court, Southern District of New York
• United States District Court, District of New Jersey
• United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina
• United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia
• United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee
• United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama
• United States District Court, District of South Carolina
• United States District Court, Northern District of Florida
• United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
• United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico
• United States District Court, District of the Virgin Islands.