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
GenAI's ability to produce highly sophisticated and convincing content at a fraction of the previous cost has raised fears that it could amplify misinformation. The dissemination of fake audio, images and text could reshape how voters perceive candidates and parties. Businesses, too, face challenges in managing their reputations and navigating this new terrain of manipulated content.
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.