Comment. Once it has been determined to prosecute, either by filing a complaint or information or by filing an indictment with the grand jury, the government`s lawyer must decide which charges to file or recommend. If the conduct in question consists of a single criminal offence or if there is only one applicable law, this is not a difficult task. However, as a general rule, an accused has committed more than one crime and his or her conduct may be prosecuted under more than one law. In addition, the choice of fees can be further complicated by the fact that different laws have different evidentiary requirements and provide for significantly different penalties. In such cases, considerable care must be taken to ensure the choice of appropriate fees. In addition to addressing the concerns that led to the decision on prosecutions at first instance, particular attention should be paid to the need to ensure that prosecutions are both fair and effective. Finally, the government prosecutor should make it clear that his or her consent relates only to non-prosecution and that he or she does not have the independent authority to promise that the witness will be included in the department`s witness security program or that the marshal`s service will provide benefits to the witness in exchange for his or her cooperation. This does not mean, of course, that the Prosecutor should not cooperate in making the necessary arrangements with the Marshal`s Service for the protection of the witness in appropriate cases. The procedures to be followed in such cases are set out in the 9 to 21,000 JM. Comment. For the fair and efficient administration of justice in the federal system, it is important that the government lay as few charges as necessary to ensure that justice is done.

JM 9-27.320 describes three general situations in which additional charges may be laid: (1) where necessary to adequately account for the nature and full extent of the criminal conduct in question; 2. where it is necessary to establish the basis for an appropriate sanction in all the circumstances of the case; or (3) whether an additional charge or indictment would significantly strengthen the proceedings against the defendant or a co-respondent. Comment. JM 9-27.430 sets out the considerations to be taken into consideration when choosing the charge or charges to which a defendant should plead guilty once it has been decided to decide the case in accordance with an agreement. The considerations are essentially the same as those governing the choice of charges to be included in the indictment or initial information. See JM 9-27 300. Any Attorney General of the United States or the Department of Justice (or Deputy Chief) or Office Manager must keep documentation of the facts and justification for any substantial support that makes the case. The repository(s) in this documentation does not have to be the folder itself. The Freedom of Information Act or other considerations may result in a separate form indicating that the final decision is upheld. (vi) A statement that non-payment in accordance with the terms of the agreement or compliance with the terms of the agreement may result in the reinstatement of all suspended penalties and also the loss of any reduction in civil penalties claimed in the claim, in which case the amount originally claimed becomes immediately due; and (1) If the negotiations result in an agreement on the amount or terms of payment of a civil penalty or on the terms of an order, a settlement agreement shall be entered into and signed by the defendant and the sales representative or his agent. This settlement agreement includes: 2. Sentencing agreements.

There are only two types of punishment. Both are allowed, but one is more complicated than the other. First, prosecutors can negotiate a sentence that falls within the established policy area of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. This means that if there is an 18- to 24-month guideline, the prosecutor may agree, at his or her discretion, to recommend an 18- to 20-month sentence, for example, instead of arguing for a sentence at the top of the range. Such a means does not require that the actual range of penalties be determined in advance. The agreement may contain language that, once the margin has been established by the court, the United States will recommend a specific point in this area. Similarly, the prosecutor may agree to recommend a downward adjustment to assume liability if he or she concludes in good faith that the defendant is entitled to the adjustment.

Second, the prosecutor may try to deviate from the guidelines. It`s more complicated than a good deal, which involves a sentence within a range of guidelines. Departures are discussed more generally below. Focus on critical facts and arguments. Government counsel should apply the relevant sentencing factors to the facts in the most accurate and persuasive manner that supports the verdict recommended by the government. Judges often receive a considerable amount of information when the verdict is rendered. Justice is best served when prosecutors reduce this information to its most important points and provide judges with a convincing framework through which they can understand the importance of the case, the impact on victims, the importance of general and specific deterrence, and the need for the requested punishment and rehabilitation plan to achieve a just result. Comment. In the federal criminal justice system, the prosecutor has a great deal of leeway in determining when, who, how and even whether to prosecute for clear violations of federal criminal law. The prosecutor`s broad discretion in areas such as initiating or refraining from prosecution, choosing or recommending certain charges, and terminating prosecutions by accepting guilty pleas has been recognized by the courts on numerous occasions. See e.B.

United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 762 (1997); Oyler vs. 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 is based on the prosecutor`s status as a member of the executive branch and the president`s responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that U.S. laws 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 great deal of flexibility 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 general statement of principles summarizing the considerations to be considered and the desirable practices to be followed. in the exercise of their functions as prosecutors.

Comment. JM 9-27.440 concerns plea agreements that include ”Alford” pleas – guilty pleas by defendants who nevertheless claim to be innocent. In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not prohibit a court from accepting a guilty plea from an accused who simultaneously affirms his innocence as long as the plea is filed voluntarily and intelligently and there is a solid factual basis for it. The court argued that there is no substantial difference between a nolo contendere plea, in which the defendant does not expressly admit his guilt, and an admission of guilt by a defendant who asserts his guilt. Despite the constitutional validity of Alford`s pleas, such means should be avoided except in the most unusual circumstances, even if there is no agreement on the plea and the plea would cover all pending charges. As one court put it, ”the public may not understand or accept the fact that an accused who has denied guilt has nevertheless been able to plead guilty and go to jail.” See United States v. Bednarski, 445 F.2d 364, 366 (1. Cir…