Control Components Inc. (CCI), a California based company, plead guilty in July 2009 to violations of the FCPA and the Travel Act. The government indicted CCI and some of its former employees in the Central District of California for allegedly engaging in “a conspiracy to secure contracts by paying bribes to officials of foreign state-owned companies as well as officers and employees of foreign and domestic private companies” in about 36 countries. Seven defendants were convicted and received varying sentences ranging from home detention to more than three months incarceration.
News
"Recent Sentencing Activity ," FCPA Professor Blog , April 30, 2013.
"DOJ recommends no jail for three CCI execs ," FCPA Blog , February 7, 2013.
"Control Components CEO, Sales Manager Sentenced in FCPA Case ," The Wall Street Journal , November 9, 2012.
"Edmonds [Final Defendant in Carson Case] Pleads Guilty As Trial Nears ," FCPA Professor Blog , June 18, 2012.
"Guilty Plea in FCPA Case a Rare Victory for Government ," The National Law Journal , May 31, 2012.
"Judge Selna Rejects State Actor Theory – [Denies Defense Motions to Suppress and Dismiss] ," FCPA Professor , May 16, 2012.
"Husband And Wife Plead Guilty To FCPA Violations ," The Wall Street Journal , April 17, 2012.
"Defendants in Carson FCPA Case File Two New Motions Attacking DOJ's Relationship With Their Corporation (Who Has Cooperated) ," Federal Securities Law Blog , March 6, 2012
"In Carson Case, DOJ Agrees 'Foreign Official' Knowledge Is Required ," FCPA Blog , September 27, 2011
"Judge Denies Travel Act Challenge ," FCPA Blog , August 15, 2011
"Carson 'Foreign Official' Challenge Moves To Jury Instructions ," FCPA Professor , July 5, 2011
Continue reading below
Featured Products
2025 Year-End Ethics Grab
Earn your ethics credits for 2025 by learning from some of the best criminal defense attorneys in the country! This comprehensive year-end ethics program brings together three of NACDL’s most practical and timely presentations—helping defense lawyers meet their ethics credit requirements while sharpening their understanding of the professional challenges facing today’s practice. This special compilation includes the highest-rated legal ethics presentations delivered at NACDL conferences in 2025!
Using AI for Trial Preparation: Managing Overwhelming Caseloads
This 1-hour program shows defense lawyers how to use AI to tame heavy caseloads while staying ethical. Learn to auto-summarize discovery into timelines, relationship maps, and contradiction charts; draft and refine cross-exams; analyze juror questionnaires; and test case theories. Set up workflows and agents to monitor law, media, and social posts. Build simple custom trial tools. Leverage sentencing data for mitigation. Includes confidentiality, verification, and disclosure best practices to boost accuracy and save hours weekly.
Pozner's Red Book on Cross: Lessons in Advanced Cross-Examination
This compact handbook brings together over 20 of Larry Pozner’s most powerful cross-examination articles, covering core principles and advanced strategies for witness control, impeachment, chaptering, and framing reasonable doubt. Packed with scripting examples, real-world scenarios, and tactical insight, it shows how to press or pivot with purpose, drop weak points, and keep cross disciplined. Whether dismantling an officer’s account, challenging an eyewitness, or exposing investigative gaps, Pozner’s field manual delivers courtroom-ready tools to win.
Exposing Lies and False Testimony in Criminal Trials
When a case hinges on credibility, the lawyer who can expose a lie controls the outcome. This program delivers a courtroom-ready system to detect deception, dismantle false testimony, and turn credibility attacks into acquittals or favorable pleas. Learn research-backed methods to spot dishonesty in interviews, build an impeachment toolkit under the rules of evidence, and craft narratives that reveal bias, motive, and contradictions—arming you to challenge police, experts, informants, and eyewitnesses with precision.
Objections That Stick! How to Exclude, Preserve, and Persuade
If you’re not objecting, you might be conceding—learn how to stop giving ground.
This program delivers practical strategies for making effective objections in criminal trials, especially drug cases. Learn how to challenge hearsay, 404(b) evidence, improper opinions, and prejudicial testimony. You’ll get objection language, methods for preserving error, and tactics for handling misconduct in closing arguments. With real-world examples and trial-tested tools, this program helps defense attorneys sharpen courtroom advocacy and protect the record for appeal.
Combating the "Rape Myth" Expert: Excluding & Diffusing Expert Testimony
When the prosecution uses a “rape myth” expert to sway the jury, do you know how to stop them—and turn their science against them?
This program, based on a real trial, gives defense attorneys a practical roadmap to challenge and exclude biased psychological testimony. You’ll get sample voir dire, motion language, Daubert strategies, and tips for exposing flawed methodology and narrowing testimony. Whether you're aiming to exclude the expert or limit their impact, this session equips you with the tools to protect your client and assert control in the courtroom.
Pattern Cross-Examination for Digital Forensic Experts
This guide provides ready-to-use cross-examination questions, categorized by artifact type and case theme—from cell phone towers to deleted texts to smart devices and cloud forensics. Whether you’re handling a case involving child exploitation, stalking, or online fraud, this book delivers practical patterns designed to highlight sloppy forensics, bias, tool limitations, and assumptions of intent or identity. Defense attorneys don’t need a computer science degree—they need strategy, control, and the right questions to challenge the illusion of digital certainty in court.
Using Chat GPT in Criminal Cases - Writing Better Prompts
Want a motion written in plain language but grounded in Tennessee case law? Need a summary of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence with primary and secondary citations? This is where you learn how to get that—on demand, and with far less editing. This training is designed specifically for attorneys—busy professionals who need fast, accurate, and case-relevant AI support. Whether you’re drafting motions, brainstorming legal strategy, summarizing complex case law, or preparing cross-examinations, the quality of your AI output comes down to one thing: how you ask for it.
Alcohol, Blackouts and Consent in Sex Cases
This comprehensive training program provides defense attorneys with a rigorous, science-backed approach to dismantling prosecutorial narratives, exposing unreliable testimony, and ensuring that juries are properly educated on the complexities of memory, intoxication, and consent. You'll explores critical mistakes and misconceptions encountered in these cases, including errors in memory reconstruction after an event, incorrect inferences, cognitive schemas, suggestibility, contamination and misinformation, mistakes of fact and more.
Overcoming the Presumption of Guilt and Defining Reasonable Doubt
Reasonable Doubt, what is it?
In order to win criminal cases, the defense practitioner must object to a reasonable doubt standard that lowers the burden of guilt. This program will discuss proven methods to argue and define reasonable doubt persuasively to a jury. You’ll learn how define reasonable doubt using metaphors and hypothetical scenarios that force juries to dispute the evidence, conflicts in the evidence, or even lack of evidence in your case.
The DIY of DNA: Exoneration Through DNA Evidence
This presentation might be the first time you’re truly able to truly grasp the fundamentals of DNA evidence. This critical presentation blends real-world storytelling with clear, practical instruction—making DNA evidence finally feel accessible, even to non-scientists—while inspiring attorneys to dig deeper, ask smarter questions, and approach forensic science with newfound confidence. You’ll learn how to identify and interpret electropherograms, understand autosomal vs. Y-STR testing, and recognize the limits of DNA evidence—particularly when it involves partial or mixed samples.
Defense Filings
Defendants’ Opposition to Government’s Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Expert Witnesses , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2012)
Motion to Dismiss the Indictment , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. March 5, 2012)
Motion to Suppress Defendants' Statements , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. March 5, 2012)
Objections to Government's Proposed Jury Instruction Regarding "Foreign Official" and "Instrumentality" , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2011)
Defense Proposed Jury Instruction Regarding 'Foreign Official' and 'Instrumentality' , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2011)
Motion to Dismiss the Travel Act Counts , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2011)
Reply Brief in Support of Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Ten of the Indictment , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2011)
Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Ten of the Indictment , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2011)
Declaration of Professor Michael J. Koehler in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Ten of the Indictment , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2011)
Government Filings
Superseding Indictment of David Edmonds , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2012)
Government’s Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Expert Witnesses , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2012)
Superseding Indictment of Paul Cosgrove, United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. May 25, 2012)
Government’s Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Expert Witnesses , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2012)
Superseding Indictment of Hong “Rose” Carson , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. April 16, 2012)
Superseding Indictment of Stuart Carson , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. April 16, 2012)
Supplemental Brief Regarding Jury Instructions , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2011)
Objections to Defendants' Proposed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Jury Instructions , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2011)
Government's Proposed Jury Instructions Regarding 'Instrumentality' and Scienter , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2011)
Opposition to Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Ten of the Indictment , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011)
Indictment , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2009)
Court Orders
Plea Agreement for Defendant David Edmonds , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2012)
Plea Agreement for Defendant Paul Cosgrove , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. May 25, 2012)
Tentative Order Denying Motion to Suppress , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2012)
Tentative Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Indictment, United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2012)
Order Regarding Select Jury Instructions , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2012)
Tentative Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Travel Act Counts , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011)
Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 through 10 of the Indictment , United States v. Stuart Carson, et al. , No. 8:09-cr-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2011)