[naasking]

> Without the presentation of this evidence, you never get a guilty plea.

Firstly, I don't necessarily agree that you could never get a guilty plea. The government has lots of resources and the threat of scrutinizing you and going after you for years is a significant pressure. For sure this can be abused, but my point is only that this blanket assumption that the government just has to grant immunity or throw up its hands seems like a false choice.

Secondly, total immunity is a pretty broad guarantee though. Why not trade a maximum penalty for that evidence, instead of no penalty at all?

[gruez]

>Firstly, I don't necessarily agree that you could never get a guilty plea. The government has lots of resources and the threat of scrutinizing you and going after you for years is a significant pressure

Realistically speaking government resources is still limited. They can bring the hammer down on Julian Assange because he's a high profile person they want to make an example of, but that approach isn't scalable for every mid level manager that they want to investigate.

[dragontamer]

> Why not trade a maximum penalty for that evidence

Because of 5th Amendment issues.

If there's a penalty associated with talking about evidence, then they'll just plead the 5th Amendment. Only with total immunity can you bypass the 5th Amendment and _FORCE_ them to talk.

[naasking]

Sorry, I don't see how that follows. A guarantee that "you will only get sentenced for X years regardless of what you admit" does not seem meaningfully different if X is zero or one.

edit: not meaningfully different with respect to the 5th, obviously it's meaningfully different with respect to "justice", as getting off scott free rubs many people the wrng way.

[dragontamer]

If X is zero, you did not admit to the crime (and therefore, the 5th Amendment doesn't apply)

If X is non-zero, you admit to the crime (and therefore, retain the ability to plead the 5th).

[naasking]

I don't understand. Any immunity deal entails revealing criminal behaviour. That is an admission, and admission is the whole reason immunity is granted.

Edit: the point being that the limit on their sentence is contingent on not pleading the 5th.

[dragontamer]

> Any immunity deal entails revealing criminal behaviour.

You are mistaken.

Lets say "Alice" is the boss you're after, and Bob is a close associate of Alice, and Bob _MIGHT_ have committed a crime. Nobody knows if Bob is actually a criminal (and indeed, Bob is in that weird grey-zone of the law, skirting legal issues and just barely being legal). You give Bob immunity so that he's more comfortable in testifying in court. "Just in case" his actions constitute a crime. Especially if Bob knows something about Alice (just in case Alice is "The Boss")

Immunity doesn't "entail" criminal behavior. It just entails likely criminal associations (which is NOT a crime). Immunity protection ranges from everywhere from "Completely innocent but they wanted immunity, so might as well give it to them", to "Completely guilty, but getting their testimony will get bigger fish", and everything in between. Its a tool, like any other tool it has proper and improper uses.

[naasking]

But the context here aren't cases where the individuals in question are in a gray area, they're individuals that definitely were accessories to/covered up or participated in criminal activity but then get immunity in order to get the big fish. This is exactly what Huett was describing in the opening paragraphs of this article.

[pessimizer]

> Because of 5th Amendment issues.

What does the 5th Amendment have to do with offering someone a plea deal on some count in return for testimony, and immunity for other things that come up in that testimony?

I'm pretty sure it's common.

[Spooky23]

The law is so broad, it’s not in anyone’s interest to make a narrowly scoped deal.

The prosecutors need the win. The smart move is to extract every bit of value.