Before filing or recommending charges under a pre-load-Plea agreement, government counsel should consult the provisions of the Plea Agreement of JM 9-27.430 regarding the selection of charges to which an accused should be required to plead guilty. The first revised Proffer agreement is used by a U.S. Attorney`s Office. Its conditions are the standard and classic rules of the proffer letter and are intended only to protect the government from unfair disadvantage as a result of proffering it. It guarantees the customer “protection of use” as long as his Proffer information is true and complete. The four standard paragraphs of this letter stipulate that in entering into a non-repressive agreement, the government`s lawyer should, if possible, explicitly limit the scope of the government`s obligation: a “proffer meeting” is the meeting between a person and law enforcement, during which the person makes a proffer. As has already been said, there are different types of immunity that offer different levels of protection. The most common type of immunity offered in Proffer letters is what is called “using immunity.” This type of immunity prevents the Public Prosecutor`s Office from directly or indirectly using the statements of the person at the hearing if the person is subsequently prosecuted. However, the use of immunity does not cover some common scenarios: 1) royalty agreements. Pricing agreements provide for the dismissal of charges in exchange for a plea. As with the indictment decision, the prosecutor should seek a plea to the most serious and easily prove offence to be charged. If, as a result of the indictment, a prosecutor finds in good faith that a charge resulting from a change in evidence or other reason (for example. B where it has become apparent that the sources and methods, including the identity of a given witness until he or she testifies against a more important accused), are not readily justifiable or that a charge exaggerates the gravity of a criminal offence or offence; a plea may reflect the reassessment by the prosecutor.

In any case, there should be documentation in which the most serious is not subject to criminal prosecution. In addition, a decision not to prosecute a violation of federal law under Section 12(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act would trigger an obligation to notify Congress and cannot be made without the consent of the Assistant Attorney General for National Security. Proffer`s first two letters offer the government Kastigar`s protection, the right to use information provided at a Proffer meeting for impeachment purposes, and also conditioned the Proffer letter on truthful information. Comment. JM 9-27.420 sets out some of the appropriate considerations that counsel must consider for the government when deciding to enter into a plea agreement with a defendant in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision should not indicate that a basic agreement is desirable or undesirable in a given case, nor should it be interpreted as a reflection on the merits of a basic agreement that must actually be concluded; its purpose is exclusively to assist government lawyers in exercising their prosecutorial discretion, if a pleading agreement would be appropriate in a given case. Government lawyers should, where appropriate, consult with the investigating authority and the victim. one. Counsel for the government or another party may use statements or other information provided by you or your client during the offer (1) for cross-examination purposes if your client is a witness in a proceeding in that case and offers testimonies very different from those given by you or your client during the offer.

and (2) refute any evidence or arguments proposed by or on behalf of your client (including arguments advanced by the District Court or issues raised by the District Court) at all stages of the prosecution (including first appearance, hearings relating to conditions of detention and release, at all stages of the trial and at the conviction) as part of a lawsuit against your client. . . .

Comments are closed.