Deferred Prosecution Agreement Vs Non Prosecution Agreement
September 16, 2021
When deciding to initiate or recommend prosecution or take other action against a person, government counsel should not be influenced by: before filing or recommending charges under a pre-charge pleading agreement, government counsel should consult the provisions of the JM 9-27.430 oral argument agreement regarding the selection of charges, That an accused should plead guilty. In determining whether there is an appropriate, non-criminal alternative to criminal prosecution, the government`s lawyer should consider all relevant factors, including: all negotiated pleading agreements on crimes or misdemeanors negotiated for misdemeanours must be written in and filed in court. When determining whether a prosecution would be a core federal interest, government counsel should weigh all relevant considerations, including: with respect to the basis of evidence of the charges, the prosecutor should also pay particular attention to the differences in evidenty requirements under different laws covering similar conduct. For example, the 18 U.S. .C. § 201 bribery rules require proof of “corrupt intent,” while the “tipping” provisions do not. Similarly, the “two witnesses” rule applies to perjury prosecutions under 18 U.S.C§ 1621, but not under 18 U.S.C§ 1623. As has already been said, a federal prosecutor should first charge the most serious, easy-to-prove offence, or offences that correspond to the accused`s behaviour. Charges should not be laid solely to leverage a plea, nor should the charge be dropped to reach an agreement that does not reflect the seriousness of the defendant`s conduct. JM 9-27 300. When deciding to dismiss the lawsuits because the person is actually being prosecuted in another jurisdiction, the government`s lawyer should consider all relevant considerations, including: when entering into a non-prosecution agreement, the government`s attorney should, if possible, explicitly limit the scope of the government`s obligation: commentary.
The provisions of this Section are intended for two purposes. First, it is important to have a written record in case of questions about the nature or extent of the agreement. Such questions will certainly arise during the cross-examination of the witness, especially since the existence of the agreement is consistent with the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.P. 150 (1972). The exact terms of the agreement may also become relevant if the government attempts to prosecute the witness in the future for a crime. Second, such registration will facilitate the identification of government lawyers (as part of the balancing of future non-compliance agreements, pleading agreements, court distractions, and other discretionary acts) and the identification of individuals whom the government has not prosecuted.
The main requirements of the written protocol are that it is so detailed that it leaves no doubt about the obligations of the contracting parties and that it is signed or initialled by the person with whom the agreement is concluded and by his lawyer, or at least by one of them. . . .