Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
White-collar defense attorneys often represent targets of investigation who, by the nature of their conduct, are subject to federal prosecution throughout the country. As a practical matter, though, federal investigations are usually conducted by a single U.S. attorney's office. If a defendant enters into a plea agreement with that office, what is the binding effect on other districts? Does the defendant get complete closure, or is the defendant exposed to possible prosecution by another office?
Federal plea agreements sometimes state explicitly that they are limited to that one office and do not bind other U.S. attorney's offices. That is true in the eastern and southern districts of New York, and such agreements have been construed to bind only the one office. But many districts do not use that specific language. Plea agreements often refer to promises made on behalf of "the United States" or "the government," and such phrasing has created ambiguity in subsequent prosecutions of a defendant who has a plea agreement with another district. In such cases, the circuits are split on how to interpret the scope of "the government."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that ambiguous plea agreements should be presumed to bind U.S. attorney's offices in other districts, and the Fourth and Eighth Circuits have gone further, holding that terms such as "the United States" and "the government" bind every governmental agency under the supervision of the attorney general. The Second and Seventh Circuits have rejected that approach, holding that general references to the government should be construed to bind only the office of the attorney for the district entering into the agreement.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.