Letter Agreements vs. Formal Cooperation Plea Agreements.

In all cases, what matters is what you are doing with the document and how the document speaks, not its title.

Often, federal prosecutors’ agreements with cooperation witnesses appear in documents informally referred to as “letter agreements.” These documents are separate from defendants’ formal plea agreements with the Department of Justice. However, as explained above, the cooperation agreement is a “contract” under the law, and its terms and conditions are just as binding and protect you just as much.

In all other aspects, including protections, obligations, sentencing benefits, and the consequences of a breach, a cooperation letter is identical to a cooperation agreement contained within a formal plea agreement. U.S. District Courts have broad leeway to use different forms of agreements and different terminology for these arrangements. While these documents are often referred to as “letter agreements,” the term has no legal meaning. Federal law does not define it as any particular type of instrument or legal document.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that this is not just an academic point. In Kelly v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the “Bridgegate” fraud convictions in 2020. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court, explaining that the exercise of regulatory power is not “property” within the meaning of the federal fraud statutes. This case makes it clear that the precise terms and protections available to defendants under a cooperation agreement are critical, and it is imperative to make sure that these protections are present in any agreement with the Department of Justice.

What Protections Do Proffer and Immunity Agreements Actually Provide?

Proffer Agreement

A proffer agreement is a letter agreement that creates contractual rules for a proffer. A proffer is an investigative process of interviewing a potential witness. The proffer agreement typically ensures that the statements and information you provide will not be used against you, though it generally provides very narrow and limited protection. It does not protect you from derivative use of your statements, and it is neither a plea offer nor a promise of cooperation credit.

18 U.S.C. § 6002, Statutory Immunity

U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors who want to compel testimony from the target of an investigation in a federal grand jury or at a federal criminal trial can present a formal immunity request to the court to compel your cooperation by presenting you with “use and derivative-use immunity” pursuant to a judicial order under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002(a) and (c) or 6003(c) and (d). The relevant section of 18 U.S.C. § 6002 states:

“... the testimony or other information given by the witness shall not be used, directly or indirectly, against him or her in any criminal case, nor shall it be used directly or indirectly to augment any other evidence that might otherwise lead to a prosecution, and neither the witness’s statements nor other evidence obtained under the authority of the court’s order shall be used as a basis for a subsequent subpoena duces tecum directed to the witness or any third party, nor shall any information gained from the witness’s testimony or other evidence be used as the basis for conducting an investigation of, or to develop leads for the purpose of prosecuting the witness on any criminal charge.”

While the text of the statute seems comprehensive, it contains one critical exception: “Neither of the prior sentences shall prohibit the use of the witness’s testimony or other evidence obtained under the court’s order to assist in the prosecution of the case in which the witness’s testimony or other information was or is to be used or as against any person with whom the witness has provided information that this person may have a legal obligation to testify truthfully under 18 U.S.C. § 1623.”

Although it confers broad protection, the statute also requires that the testimony be given under compulsion in a federal grand jury or at a criminal trial. The statute therefore is inapplicable to proffer agreements and the substantive testimony of cooperation witnesses.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8, Use-Based Immunity

United States Sentencing Guideline Section 1B1.8 provides that the sentencing court cannot consider a defendant’s self-incriminating statements against them during sentencing if these statements were made “pursuant to a cooperation agreement,” including a conditional plea agreement or agreement to cooperate with the government in the investigation or prosecution of another person(s). The relevant section of 1B1.8 states:

“... to have any effect on the court’s determination as to the defendant’s culpability, guilt, or sentence, including probation or other conditions of probation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

How do Separate and Embedded Cooperation Terms Differ?

What is a Cooperation Plea Agreement?

A cooperation plea agreement is a federal government contract that combines a defendant’s guilty plea with substantial assistance obligations. As prosecutors explain, “They usually include all of the provisions that are required or recommended in the Plea Agreement and Supplemental provisions under Chapter 8, in addition to the cooperation agreement provisions in Part I, Section 5 of the Plea Agreement.” The resulting agreement often looks much like a Standard Plea Agreement, but it incorporates substantially more language and provisions.

As a result, while it has many aspects similar to a cooperation letter agreement, a cooperation plea agreement is, primarily, a type of formal plea agreement.

What Are Cooperation Obligations?

As a general matter, cooperation obligations take one or more of the following forms:

• Interviewing with federal prosecutors and investigative agents with regard to relevant information and individuals;
• Providing federal prosecutors and investigative agents with relevant documents and files;
• Testifying truthfully in federal grand jury proceedings, at federal criminal trials, or at sentencing hearings;
• Making controlled recordings of relevant individuals;
• Providing continued and complete truthful information to federal prosecutors; and
• Performing other additional acts of cooperation that may be requested.

While these are the most common examples of cooperation obligations under a plea agreement, it is important to note that these obligations are very broad and that additional, case-specific obligations may also apply. For example, prosecutors may expect testimony in both a target’s criminal trial and subsequent retrials and appeals as necessary.

What Constitutes a Breach Under a Cooperation Plea?

Although the guilty plea and the obligation to assist the Department of Justice are both important components of a cooperation plea agreement, they represent two entirely separate and distinct promises. However, in many cases, prosecutors seek to intertwine these promises, and, as a result, a breach of either part of the agreement can result in forfeiture of the benefits of both parts of the agreement. As a result, even if a defendant is willing and able to provide substantial assistance in the prosecution of another individual, any material breach of the underlying plea agreement, including any waiver of rights that is bargained for in the plea agreement, could lead to a loss of all benefits, including any sentencing benefits that will be available to the defendant for his or her cooperation.

What Are the Potential Benefits of a Cooperation Plea?

In addition to benefits such as a reduced sentence, a cooperation plea can also include stipulations as to specific matters that the defendant is required to prove, which can lead to substantial benefits as well. For example, stipulations as to drug quantity, loss amount, or offense role can significantly affect the defendant’s guidelines range for purposes of sentencing.

How Can Cooperation Reduce a Federal Sentence?

1. A Government Motion for a Substantial-Assistance Departure Under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1

While a federal judge is generally not authorized to sentence a defendant outside the applicable guidelines range absent a motion from the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s explicit acknowledgement, U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 provides for a “departure” in sentencing for a defendant’s providing “substantial assistance.”

As noted, however, Section 5K1.1 is not the only way to secure a sentencing departure. Furthermore, the provisions of Section 5K1.1 do not authorize a federal judge to impose a sentence below the applicable statutory minimum.

As a result, Section 5K1.1 is only one of many potential avenues for securing a sentence below the statutory maximum.

2. A Government Motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)

When a defendant’s cooperation warrants a sentence below the applicable statutory minimum, the government must move under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) in order to provide the court with authority to sentence the defendant below the statutory minimum. For purposes of a sentence below the statutory minimum, “substantial assistance” as defined under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 does not suffice. For an 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) motion to be appropriate, “the defendant . . .., in the course of assisting law enforcement agencies, has:

(1) provided truthful and complete information concerning his or her own conduct or federal offenses committed by other persons; or,

(2) provided information leading to the arrest and conviction of one or more persons; or

(3) provided information leading to a substantial financial recovery.”

In addition to providing evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), federal prosecutors often seek to limit a defendant’s sentencing credit by noting that the information the defendant provided was “already available in the government’s possession.” However, the statutory language is clear: the statute specifies “provided” information, and does not require that the information provided be “new.”

3. The Substantial Assistance Criteria of U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1(a)

When determining whether to file a motion for a substantial assistance departure, the prosecution will typically evaluate the defendant’s cooperation in light of the five criteria set forth in U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1(a):

(1) The significance and usefulness of each instance of assistance: The judge will consider this criterion in light of “the assistance provided by the defendant.” This is highly subjective and will vary from case to case.

(2) The truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of the information provided: The judge will consider the assistance provided relative to any known facts and the defendant’s cooperation with the government’s prosecution of others.

(3) The nature and extent of the assistance provided: This includes not only the information that the defendant has provided, but also the degree of cooperation he or she has provided in the government’s prosecution of others.

(4) The injuries or dangers incurred: The judge will consider the damages or risks that the defendant has incurred in order to cooperate, or that he or she expects to incur in order to cooperate.

(5) The timeliness of the assistance: The judge will consider the timeliness of the defendant’s cooperation and “the extent to which the defendant’s cooperation has served to facilitate the prosecution of others.”

If any of this describes your situation, it is worth talking it through with counsel. Spodek Law Group can be reached at 212-300-5196.

Can Cooperation Lower My Sentence After Sentencing?

Yes, but the federal government’s opportunities to request a sentencing reduction are significantly curtailed after sentencing. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), a district court is authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence upon a motion from the government, provided that:

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

What Happens if Either Side Breaches the Cooperation Agreement?

What Happens When the Government Does Not File a Cooperation Motion?

If a cooperation agreement contains an express promise by the government to file a cooperation motion, a federal judge will typically enforce that promise as written. However, if the agreement merely states that the government may file a cooperation motion in the defendant’s case, federal judges’ power to review the government’s decision not to file such a motion is “narrowly limited.” As a result, it is critical to ensure that the language in your cooperation agreement contains an express promise rather than a promise of the opportunity for a cooperation motion.

What Happens When the Government Breaches an Express Promise?

As noted, when a cooperation agreement contains an express promise by the government to do anything, it is generally interpreted and enforced pursuant to general principles that are similar in nature to contract law. Although defendants have limited remedies upon a prosecutorial breach, they may be entitled to withdraw their guilty pleas or receive specific performance of the bargained-for benefits. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Santobello v. New York, where a defendant has fully performed his or her obligations, the available remedy for a breached plea agreement is either “either allowing the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea” or “specific performance by the sentencing court.” As a result, if a defendant receives the sentencing benefit promised by the prosecution in a case involving a breached plea agreement, the sentencing court may need to resign the case to a different judge in order to resentence the defendant.

What Happens When a Defendant Breaches a Cooperation Agreement?

Similarly, the consequences of a defendant’s breach of a cooperation agreement will depend on the operative language, although, as a general matter, a breach by the defendant will release the government from any of its obligations. If the government chooses to refuse to move for a reduction in sentence, federal judges generally will not interfere under a standard like “abuse of discretion” to force a motion for a reduction of a defendant’s sentence. However, if the government refuses a motion as a result of unconstitutional considerations, some courts have held that the federal courts will not defer in such situations. See, e.g., Wade v. United States. A breach of a cooperation agreement under most circumstances does not invalidate a defendant’s guilty plea, nor does it require the federal judge to accept the government’s guilty plea regardless of whether a breach of a cooperation agreement has occurred.

What Happens When New Prosecutors Fail to Respect Prior Agreements?

Finally, as a general rule, agreements entered into on behalf of the United States bind all future prosecutors who represent the United States. This means that express commitments that are enforceable will typically bind any successor prosecutors and the U.S. Attorney’s Office regardless of whether the commitment was made or entered into on behalf of a prior prosecutor or prior U.S. Attorney.

Will My Cooperation Become Public or Put Me at Risk?

Are Co-Defendants or Potential Witness Eligible to Request a Copy of the Agreement or Documents Containing Terms Related to Potential Cooperation Credit?

As federal government witnesses, all defendants who enter into agreements to cooperate may be subject to disclosure and cross-examination regarding prior inconsistent statements, including statements that affect the credibility of the witness’s testimony. As cooperation witnesses for the United States, defendants who accept plea agreements or enter into cooperation letters and other documents may face retaliation or damaged relationships within the community and their industry. As a result, it is very important for cooperating defendants to understand what they are agreeing to in their cooperation agreements and plea agreements and for prospective defendants to have their interests and obligations clearly understood prior to entering into such agreements.

Will My Cooperation Documents Be Public?

If a defendant agrees to cooperate, his or her cooperation agreement will not, as a general rule, be filed publicly. Rather, the defendant will likely be required to make representations to the District Court judge that he or she will truthfully, continuously, and fully cooperate. However, this is not an absolute protection, and cooperation agreements can be made public when necessary. For example, the court may seal documents under its inherent authority, but it will only do so when the interests justifying restricted access outweigh the public’s right to access court documents.

Will my Agreement and/or Other Cooperation Documentation Be Disclosed to the Prosecution Witness?

Although cooperation agreements are generally not filed publicly, the government is generally required to disclose a witness’s cooperation agreement to a defendant when that witness testifies against the defendant in a criminal case, and the government is required to make the agreement available to the defense for impeachment. See, e.g., Giglio v. United States. As a result, if a defendant is considered to have information that is favorable to the defendant’s potential for seeking credit at sentencing, the government should be asked to provide a comprehensive summary of the assistance that it will seek to present for sentencing purposes. This may include information about promises for sentencing benefits that the witness has received or expected to receive, as well as information that pertains to the witness’s credibility or background that could serve as grounds for a credible-impeaching-material argument.

Are There Any Other Protections for Cooperating Defendants?

Yes, and these can be negotiated through a cooperation agreement. However, as a result, cooperation agreements should be handled with extreme care and with a skilled defense attorney. If a witness and/or his or her immediate family members are under imminent risk of death or bodily harm as a result of their cooperation, they may be protected under 18 U.S.C. § 3521, as amended by the Witness Security Improvement Act of 1984. Under this section, the federal witness security program, administered by the U.S. Marshals Service, makes it clear that all witnesses, regardless of the nature of their offense, are potential candidates for witness protection.

Talk to Spodek Law Group

Every case turns on its own facts, and general information is no substitute for advice about yours. Todd Spodek, managing partner of Spodek Law Group, and the firm's attorneys defend federal criminal and white collar matters nationwide. Reach the firm at 212-300-5196.