Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A defendant who pleads guilty is usually required to waive a host of constitutional and statutory rights, such as the right to a jury trial, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to testify and present evidence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). By necessity, a defendant who wishes to gain the potential sentencing benefits of pleading guilty must waive these trial rights. However, many defendants are also required to waive their right to appeal in order to receive a favorable plea agreement with the government. In federal court, these agreements typically require the waiver of the right to appeal when the sentence is within or below an agreed-upon range. In addition, only with the consent of the government and the court may a defendant enter a conditional plea in federal court and thereby reserve the right to appeal an adverse determination of a pretrial motion (such as a suppression motion or a motion in limine). Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).
*May exclude premium content
By Jacqueline C. Wolff
Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue
this second edition contains some new “hypotheticals” — facts of actual cases the DOJ finds important enough to focus on — and, in keeping true to its name, has included additional resources and links for chief compliance officers looking to design and audit their companies’ anticorruption compliance programs.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
United States v. Napout
The U.S. government’s lead role in the prosecution of corruption within the Zurich-based FIFA may be a paradigmatic example of U.S. law enforcement acting as the world’s policeman. If corruption is based on foreign executives violating their duties of loyalty to foreign private entities, how does that translate into a violation of U.S. criminal law? Does it matter that the conduct in which the foreign executive engaged — commercial bribery — may not be illegal under the law of the executive’s home country?
By Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan S. Sack
This article discusses cases that have begun to address whether “official act” is an element in a private honest services fraud prosecution.
By Telemachus P. Kasulis
For a moment there, it really looked like it was going to happen. After a long and winding road, insider trading reform had reached the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. The Insider Trading Prohibition Act (ITPA) had support on both sides of the aisle and on Dec. 5, 2019, the House voted to pass the ITPA. Then the bill went to the Senate and vanished. We should take this opportunity to learn what lessons we can from the successes and failures of the ITPA as a bill with an eye toward fashioning the best possible legislation next time — whenever that may be.