Queen For A Day Immunity Agreements

This letter contains the full and complete terms of the agreement between Richard Roe and the government, and there are no other agreements, promises, conditions or conditions that are explicit or implied. The Government also insisted on the right to use the information provided during the recipients` meeting in a derivative manner and demanded that the client renounce Kastigar`s possible problems. See Kastigar v. United States, 92 S.C. 1653 (1972) (where immunity was granted to the person, the government is responsible for proving, in any subsequent prosecution, that its evidence comes entirely from immune testimony). This language was rightly requested by the government in order to avoid any subsequent argument that the government had misused the information it had received during the Proffer meeting to continue its investigation. The Government was concerned that, in the absence of this protection, if it participated in a protest meeting and received information from a defendant and there was no final agreement, the government would argue that the government would have used the information during the offer meeting to continue its investigation of the defendant. As the government`s investigation has often had many facets, the government would have been in a very difficult position to try to separate the information it has learned independently of the proffers meeting, the impact, if at all, of the information of the most detracting in its decision-making, of what to follow and the means of investigation it has to follow. By adding a waiver to Kastigar in a letter, the government is trying to avoid the “dirty” argument, which ultimately proved fatal to the government`s persecution of Oliver North. See UNITED States v. North, 920 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

North had been granted immunity from Congress and had been compelled to testify before Congress. In its subsequent prosecution, the government was unable to demonstrate that its evidence and investigations were not influenced by the government`s disclosure and the exposure of its witnesses to the testimony and forced information provided by Oliver North during his testimony to Congress, as part of immunity for the use of financial aid and the use of derivatives. While preparing this article, I read “Pitfalls of Proffers in the Second Circuit,” an article published in The Champion, a monthly published by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. This article contains an excellent discussion of how some courts have considered the various fairness arguments for and against the government`s authorization to identify certain types of exemptions in proffer correspondence agreements as a precondition for the government involved in settlement negotiations.