The Government also insisted on the right to use the information provided during the recipients` meeting in a derivative manner and demanded that the client renounce Kastigar`s possible problems. See Kastigar v. United States, 92 S.C. 1653 (1972) (where immunity was granted to the person, the government is responsible for proving, in any subsequent prosecution, that its evidence comes entirely from immune testimony). This language was rightly requested by the government in order to avoid any subsequent argument that the government had misused the information it had received during the Proffer meeting to continue its investigation. The Government was concerned that, in the absence of this protection, if it participated in a protest meeting and received information from a defendant and there was no final agreement, the government would argue that the government would have used the information during the offer meeting to continue its investigation of the defendant. As the government`s investigation has often had many facets, the government would have been in a very difficult position to try to separate the information it has learned independently of the proffers meeting, the impact, if at all, of the information of the most detracting in its decision-making, of what to follow and the means of investigation it has to follow. By adding a waiver to Kastigar in a letter, the government is trying to avoid the “dirty” argument, which ultimately proved fatal to the government`s persecution of Oliver North. See UNITED States v. North, 920 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1990). North had been granted immunity from Congress and had been compelled to testify before Congress.
In its subsequent prosecution, the government was unable to demonstrate that its evidence and investigations were not influenced by the government`s disclosure and the exposure of its witnesses to the testimony and forced information provided by Oliver North during his testimony to Congress, as part of immunity for the use of financial aid and the use of derivatives. During a meeting, defence counsel usually begins with a preliminary statement on the topics the client will discuss. Then, the defence lawyer will usually sit down while the prosecutor and the officers ask questions. If the person is hesitant to answer a particular question, they may ask to speak with their lawyer in private, and such requests are always taken into account at a proffer meeting. During the private consultation, the lawyer can respond to the client`s concerns. As mentioned above, there are different types of immunity that offer different levels of protection. The most common type of immunity offered in sleight of hand letters is so-called “immunity of use.” This type of immunity prevents the prosecution from directly or indirectly using the person`s evidence in court if the person is prosecuted at a later date. However, the application of immunity does not cover some common scenarios: most proffers are done with the informal understanding that the government, if it is convinced that you are telling the truth at the Proffer meeting, will then conclude with you a formal agreement, written immunity or a plea.