The principles outlined here by the federal prosecutor`s office are intended to promote the justified exercise of the prosecutor`s discretion by government lawyers with respect to: But Cassell said it could complicate prosecutions against those who facilitated Epstein`s misconduct because his former non-prosecution agreement granted immunity to the conspirators and can no longer be challenged. Manhattan federal prosecutors, who were not part of the previous non-persecution agreement, are investigating those who might have facilitated Epstein`s crimes. Three types of means include the language jm 9-27.400: 1) agreements where other charges are not sought or dismissed in exchange for the means derived from a reloaded or inferior or related offence („pricing agreements“); 2) agreements under which the government takes a particular position in relation to the penalty to be applied („punitive agreements“); and 3) agreements that combine a means of recourse to a rejection of the indictment and an obligation of the prosecutor on the government`s position in the conviction („mixed arrangements“). What do you mean? The provisions of this section are intended for two purposes. First, it is important to have a written record when questions arise as to the nature or extent of the agreement. Such questions certainly arise when cross-examining the witness, especially since the existence of the agreement is consistent with Brady v`s requirements. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The exact terms of the agreement may also be relevant if the government attempts to prosecute the witness for certain crimes in the future. Second, such a protocol will facilitate the identification of persons by prosecutors (as part of the balancing of future agreements, no charges, pleas, distraction from preliminary proceedings and other discretionary acts) of persons whom the government has agreed not to prosecute.

The main conditions of the written protocol are that it is sufficiently detailed, that it leaves no doubt about the obligations of the parties to the agreement and that it is signed or initiated by the person with whom the agreement is concluded and by his lawyer or, at least, by one of them. All pleas negotiated for misdemeanours or misdemeanours that are tried on the basis of thought crimes must be presented in writing and in court. If a prosecution is to be completed pursuant to a pleading, the accused should be required to avail himself of a charge or charge: the prosecutor should initiate or recommend a federal crown if he or she believes that the person`s conduct constitutes a federal offence and that the evidence permitted will likely be sufficient to obtain and obtain a conviction, unless the Crown does not respond to any essential federal interest; (2) that the person is actually prosecuted in another jurisdiction; or (3) there is an appropriate alternative to the application of criminal law. Legal immunity or immunity from criminal prosecution is a legal status in which a natural or legal person cannot be held responsible for a violation of the law in order to facilitate the societal objectives that predominate the value of liability in such cases. Such legal immunity may be criminal prosecution or civil liability (as the object of the action) or both. The most notable forms of legal immunity are diplomatic immunity, judicial immunity and witness immunity. One author described legal immunity as a „front of a legal power“:[1] Even if it is not possible to obtain the desired cooperation under an agreement of „informal immunity of use“, the prosecutor should try to limit the scope of the agreement with respect to the testimony and transactions covered, taking into account the potential impact of his agreement on prosecutions in other districts.