Immunity Agreement Sample

The purpose of the letters of proffers was to ensure that the Crown and the defence could intervene in preliminary discussions on a fair solution to a potential or pending criminal case, without one of the parties being unfairly disadvantaged in the event that the case could not be resolved. Over the years, letters, like so many other aspects of the criminal justice process, have been turned by some prosecutors into insulting weapons. Passport correspondence agreements have become one-sided documents, which must often be accepted as a necessary condition for oral arguments with the government. It seems that with each new version of the proffer letter, what is “off-the-record” decreases, while, at the same time, the possibilities offered to prosecutors, so-called “off-the-record”, and the information provided during the meetings of the proffer increase. In the hands of some prosecutors, Proffer`s letter is not intended to ensure that off-the-record discussions between the parties can take place in reasonable and fair circumstances, but rather to obtain maximum benefits for the government. Current versions of many letter agreements cantilever “well” the ability of an accused to present a defense to the court if a case is not resolved after the end of the trial to proffer. The first verified shooting agreement is used by a U.S. Attorney`s Office. Its terms are the usual and classic provisions of the letter and are intended only to protect the government from unwarranted disadvantage as a result of the proffer procedure. It guarantees the customer`s “benefit” protection as long as its information is truthful and complete. In the four standard paragraphs of this letter, it is stated that, in cases where it is hidden or difficult to identify, full and honest disclosure of the conduct prior to being found is an important consideration in favour of granting immunity. For example, competition offences, such as price fixing, may persist for some time, unless one of the parties to the pricing regime voluntarily arises. In such circumstances, the granting of immunity should reflect the substantial benefits to legislative objectives.

Many recent revisions to pro-U.S. agreements have added additional provisions and require the abandonment of a large number of safeguards. These makeshift agreements reflect an all-too-frequent attitude of some prosecutors on “my way or the highway”. It is a product, at least in part, of the increased and, in some cases, unverifiable power granted to federal lawyers, in particular by the threat of the application of binding criminal laws and the operation of the United States criminal directives.