The wording of JM 9-27.400 includes three types of plea agreements: (1) agreements in which other charges are not laid or dismissed in exchange for the defendant`s plea for an accused offense or a lesser or related offense (“impeachment agreements”); (2) agreements under which the government takes a certain position on the sanction to be imposed (“criminal agreements”); and (3) agreements that combine a plea with a dismissal of charges and a commitment by the prosecutor regarding the government`s position on the conviction (“mixed agreements”). (11) Prosecutors shall play an active role in criminal proceedings, including prosecution and, where permitted by law or in accordance with local practice, in investigating criminal offences, monitoring the legality of such investigations, supervising the execution of court decisions and exercising other functions as representatives of the public interest. IDEAL CONSIDERATIONS: Is bail really necessary to ensure that person returns to court? Are there other ways to ensure that he goes back to court? Can this person even afford to pay a deposit? If not, what impact will pre-trial detention have on his life? His job? His accommodation? His family? Its own safety? Should I request the pre-trial detention of a person presumed innocent? Should I investigate these allegations further? In some countries, the prosecutor takes over the investigation as soon as an offence has been committed. In both the United States and Russia, the prosecutor is largely responsible for police investigations, in which he must ensure that the guaranteed rights of the accused are protected. In England, most prosecutions are conducted by the police on the basis of complaints to them; The most serious crimes, such as murder, are prosecuted by a judicial official. The English procedure does not centralise all prosecutions in a single official or body and is therefore different from the system used in Scotland and continental European countries, as well as from the American system. Comment. In the federal criminal justice system, prosecutors have considerable discretion in deciding when, who, how and even whether to prosecute clear violations of federal criminal law. The prosecutor`s broad discretion in areas such as initiating or withholding prosecutions, selecting or recommending certain charges, and ending prosecutions by accepting guilty pleas has been recognized by the courts on numerous occasions. See, e.g., United States v.
LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 762 (1997); Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962); United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Newman v. United States, 382 F.2d 479 (D.C.
Cir. 1967); Powell v. Ratzenbach, 359 F.2d 234 (D.C. Cir. 1965). This discretion exists because of the Attorney`s status as a member of the executive branch and the President`s responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that the laws of the United States are “faithfully executed.” Const. of the United States II § 3. See Nader v. Saxbe, 497 F.2d 676, 679 n. 18 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Given that federal prosecutors have a wide margin of appreciation in making important decisions regarding the application of a national criminal justice system, it is desirable, in the interest of fair and efficient administration of justice, that all federal prosecutors be guided by a policy statement summarizing reasonable considerations and desirable practices. in the exercise of their criminal responsibility. It should be noted that non-criminal injunction referrals may not include the transmission of grand jury material unless an order is obtained pursuant to section 6(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See United States v. Sold Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (1983). The government prosecutor should initiate or recommend a federal prosecution if he or she is of the opinion that the person`s conduct constitutes a federal offence and the admissible evidence is likely to be sufficient to obtain and uphold a conviction, unless (1) the prosecution would not be in the substantive federal interest; (2) the person is actually prosecuted in another jurisdiction; or (3) there is an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution. While it is not possible to obtain the desired cooperation under an “informal use immunity” agreement, government counsel should seek to limit the scope of the agreement with respect to testimony and transactions, taking into account the potential impact of consent on law enforcement in other districts. In all public documents and proceedings, federal prosecutors must pay attention to the privacy and reputational interests of uncharged third parties.
In the context of public plea and conviction, this means that in the absence of valid justification, it is not appropriate to identify (by name or unnecessarily precisely) a third party offender or to induce a defendant to identify him, unless that party has been formally charged with the wrongdoing in question. In the unusual case where the identification of an uncharged third party during a plea or trial is warranted, the express consent of the United States Attorney and the appropriate Assistant Attorney General should be obtained prior to the hearing, except in urgent circumstances. See JM 9-16,500. In other, less predictable contexts, federal prosecutors should strive to avoid unnecessary public references to wrongdoing by uncharged third parties. With respect to identifying information about uncharged co-conspirators, prosecutors should generally seek permission to archive these documents under lock and key. However, prosecutors must comply with any court order ordering the public filing of a file. In carrying out his or her law enforcement duties, each attorney in the Department of Justice should be guided by these principles, and every U.S. attorney general and deputy attorney general should ensure that these principles are communicated to lawyers who exercise responsibility for the prosecution in his or her office or under his or her direction or supervision. 15. Prosecutors shall pay due attention to the prosecution of crimes committed by public officials, in particular corruption, abuse of power, serious violations of human rights and other crimes recognized under international law, and, to the extent permitted by law or in accordance with local customs, to the investigation of such offences.
A certain degree of institutional independence is essential to ensure the impartiality of the Public Prosecutor`s Office in the practical exercise of the investigative and prosecutorial function. Indeed, independence is ultimately an instrument of impartiality. Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on the Role of Prosecutors, all States therefore have a general obligation to ensure that prosecutors are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, obstruction, harassment, undue interference or unjustified civil, criminal or other liability. In carrying out their duties, prosecutors protect the public interest, act objectively, take due account of the circumstances of the suspect and the victim, and pay attention to all relevant circumstances, whether to the advantage or detriment of the suspect (1990, pp. 4-13). Making this policy statement available to federal law enforcement officials and the public serves two important purposes: to ensure the fair and effective exercise of prosecutors` discretion and accountability to government, and to promote public and respondents` confidence in defendants in important prosecutorial decisions that are made rationally and objectively on the merits. These principles provide appropriate guidance for prosecutors` decision-making; facilitate the training of new lawyers in the proper performance of their duties; contribute to more effective management of the limited resources of the Office of the Attorney General by promoting greater coherence between the prosecution activities of all U.S. prosecutors` offices and between their activities and the Department`s law enforcement priorities; allow for better coordination of investigation and prosecution activities by improving the understanding by investigative services and authorities of the considerations underlying the decisions of the Public Prosecutor`s Office; And they inform the public of the careful process by which prosecutorial decisions are made. is not the representative of an ordinary party in a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose commitment to an impartial government is as imperative as its obligation to govern, and whose interest in prosecution is therefore not to win a case, but to ensure that justice is done. As such, he is, in a particular and very precise sense, the servant of the law, whose dual purpose is that guilt does not escape or innocence does not suffer. He can pursue seriously and vigorously – yes, he should. But if he can execute hard shots, he is not free to hit the bad ones.
