> Number range CHAPTER**The United States Attorney is the representative
> not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose
> obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to
> govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal
> prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
> done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant
> of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or
> innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -
> indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is
> not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain
> from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as
> it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.**

**Justice Sutherland speaking for the Court in *Berger v. United
States*, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)**

**EXCERPT FORM U.S. ATTORNEYS MANUAL, GRAND JURY PRACTICE:**

**9-11.010 Introduction**

This chapter contains the Department\'s policy on grand jury practice.
For a discussion of the law, and a list of resource materials on grand
jury practice, see the Criminal Resource Manual at 154 et seq.

In dealing with the grand jury, the prosecutor must always conduct
himself or herself as an officer of the court whose function is to
ensure that justice is done and that guilt shall not escape nor
innocence suffer. The prosecutor must recognize

that the grand jury is an independent body, whose functions include not
only the investigation of crime and the initiation of criminal
prosecution but also the protection of the citizenry from unfounded
criminal charges. The prosecutor\'s responsibility is to advise the
grand jury on the law and to present evidence for its consideration. In
discharging these responsibilities, the prosecutor must be scrupulously
fair to all witnesses and must do nothing to inflame or otherwise
improperly influence the grand jurors.

**9-11.152 Requests by Subjects and Targets to Testify Before the Grand
Jury**

It is not altogether uncommon for subjects or targets of the grand
jury\'s investigation, particularly in white-collar cases, to request or
demand the opportunity to tell the grand jury their side of the story.
While the prosecutor has no legal obligation to permit such witnesses to
testify, United States v. Leverage Funding System, Inc., 637 F.2d 645
(9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 961 (1981); United States v.
Gardner, 516 F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 861
(1976)), a refusal to do so can create the appearance of unfairness.
Accordingly, under normal circumstances, where no burden upon the grand
jury or delay of its proceedings is involved, reasonable requests by a
\"subject\" or \"target\" of an investigation, as defined above, to
testify personally before the grand jury ordinarily should be given
favorable consideration, provided that such witness explicitly waives
his or her privilege against self-incrimination, on the record before
the grand jury, and is represented by counsel or voluntarily and
knowingly appears without counsel and consents to full examination under
oath.

Such witnesses may wish to supplement their testimony with the testimony
of others. The decision whether to accommodate such requests or to
reject them after listening to the testimony of the target or the
subject, or to seek statements from the suggested witnesses, is a matter
left to the sound discretion of the grand jury. When passing on such
requests, it must be kept in mind that the grand jury was never intended
to be and is not properly either an adversary proceeding or the arbiter
of guilt or innocence. See, e.g., United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S.
338, 343 (1974).

**9-11.233 Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence**

In United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735 (1992), the Supreme Court
held that the Federal courts\' supervisory powers over the grand jury
did not include the power to make a rule allowing the dismissal of an
otherwise valid indictment where the prosecutor failed to introduce
substantial exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It is the policy of
the Department of Justice, however, that when a prosecutor conducting a
grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that
directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the
prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to

the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person. While
a failure to follow the Department\'s policy should not result in
dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may refer violations of the
policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.

**EXCERPTS FROM THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS' MANUAL, PRINCIPLES OF
FEDERAL PROSECUTION:**

**9-27.200 Initiating and Declining Prosecution \-- Probable Cause
Requirement**

A. If the attorney for the government has probable cause to believe that
a person has committed a Federal offense within his/her jurisdiction,
he/she should consider whether to:

1.Request or conduct further investigation;

2.Commence or recommend prosecution;

3.Decline prosecution and refer the matter for prosecutorial
consideration in another jurisdiction;

4.Decline prosecution and initiate or recommend pretrial diversion or
other non-criminal disposition; or

5.Decline prosecution without taking other action.

B. Comment. USAM 9-27.220 sets forth the courses of action available to
the attorney for the government once he/she has probable cause to
believe that a person has committed a Federal offense within his/her
jurisdiction. The probable cause standard is the same standard as that
required for the issuance of an arrest warrant or a summons upon a
complaint (See Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(a)), for a magistrate\' s decision to
hold a defendant to answer in the district court (See Fed. R. Crim. P.
5.1(a)), and is the minimal requirement for indictment by a grand jury.
See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686 (1972). This is, of course, a
threshold consideration only. Merely because this requirement can be met
in a given case does not automatically warrant prosecution; further
investigation may be warranted, and the prosecutor should still take
into account all relevant considerations, including those described in
the following provisions, in deciding upon his/her course of action. On
the other hand, failure to meet the minimal requirement of probable
cause is an absolute bar to initiating a Federal prosecution, and in
some circumstances may preclude reference to other prosecuting
authorities or recourse to non-criminal sanctions as well.

**9-27.220 Grounds for Commencing or Declining Prosecution**

A. The attorney for the government should commence or recommend Federal
prosecution if he/she believes that the person\'s conduct constitutes a
Federal offense and that the admissible evidence will probably be
sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless, in his/her
judgment, prosecution should be declined because:

1.No substantial Federal interest would be served by prosecution;

2.The person is subject to effective prosecution in another
jurisdiction; or

3.There exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.

B. Comment. USAM 9-27.220 expresses the principle that, ordinarily, the
attorney for the government should initiate or recommend Federal
prosecution if he/she believes that the person\'s conduct constitutes a
Federal offense and that the admissible evidence probably will be
sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. Evidence sufficient to
sustain a conviction is required under Rule 29(a), Fed. R. Crim. P., to
avoid a judgment of acquittal. Moreover, both as a matter of fundamental
fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice,
no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the
government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an
unbiased trier of fact. In this connection, it should be noted that,
when deciding whether to prosecute, the government attorney need not
have in hand all the evidence upon which he/she intends to rely at
trial: it is sufficient that he/she have a reasonable belief that such
evidence will be available and admissible at the time of trial. Thus,
for example, it would be proper to commence a prosecution though a key
witness is out of the country, so long as the witness\'s presence at
trial could be expected with reasonable certainty.

The potential that\--despite the law and the facts that create a sound,
prosecutable case\--the factfinder is likely to acquit the defendant
because of the unpopularity of some factor involved in the prosecution
or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his/her
cause, is not a factor prohibiting prosecution. For example, in a civil
rights case or a case involving an extremely popular political figure,
it might be clear that the evidence of guilt\--viewed objectively by an
unbiased factfinder\--would be sufficient to obtain and sustain a
conviction, yet the prosecutor might reasonably doubt whether the jury
would convict. In such a case, despite his/her negative assessment of
the likelihood of a guilty verdict (based on factors extraneous to an
objective view of the law and the facts), the prosecutor may properly
conclude that it is necessary and desirable to commence or recommend
prosecution and allow the criminal process to operate in accordance with
its principles.

Merely because the attorney for the government believes that a person\'s
conduct constitutes a Federal offense and that the admissible evidence
will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, does not mean
that he/she necessarily should initiate or recommend prosecution: USAM
9-27.220 notes three situations in which the prosecutor may property
decline to take action nonetheless: when no substantial Federal interest
would be served by prosecution; when the person is subject to effective
prosecution in another jurisdiction; and when there exists an adequate
non-criminal alternative to prosecution. It is left to the judgment of
the attorney for the government whether such a situation exists. In
exercising that judgment, the attorney for the government should consult
USAM 9-27.230, 9-27.240, or 9-27.250, as appropriate.

**9-27.230 Initiating and Declining Charges \-- Substantial Federal
Interest**

A. In determining whether prosecution should be declined because no
substantial Federal interest would be served by prosecution, the
attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations,
including:

1.Federal law enforcement priorities;

2.The nature and seriousness of the offense;

3.The deterrent effect of prosecution;

4.The person\'s culpability in connection with the offense;

5.The person\'s history with respect to criminal activity;

6.The person\'s willingness to cooperate in the investigation or
prosecution of others; and

7.The probable sentence or other consequences if the person is
convicted.

B. Comment. USAM 9-27.230 lists factors that may be relevant in
determining whether prosecution should be declined because no
substantial Federal interest would be served by prosecution in a case in
which the person is believed to have committed a Federal offense and the
admissible evidence is expected to be sufficient to obtain and sustain a
conviction. The list of relevant considerations is not intended to be
all-inclusive. Obviously, not all of the factors will be applicable to
every case, and in any particular case one factor may deserve more
weight than it might in another case.

1.Federal Law Enforcement Priorities. Federal law enforcement resources
and Federal judicial resources are not sufficient to permit prosecution
of every alleged offense over which Federal jurisdiction exists.
Accordingly, in the interest of allocating its limited resources so as
to achieve an effective nationwide law enforcement program, from time to
time the Department establishes national investigative and prosecutorial
priorities. These priorities are designed to focus Federal law
enforcement efforts on those matters within the Federal jurisdiction
that are most deserving of Federal attention and are most likely to be
handled effectively at the Federal level. In addition, individual United
States Attorneys may establish their own priorities, within the national
priorities, in order to concentrate their resources on problems of
particular local or regional significance. In weighing the Federal
interest in a particular prosecution, the attorney for the government
should give careful consideration to the extent to which prosecution
would accord with established priorities.

2.Nature and Seriousness of Offense. It is important that limited
Federal resources not be wasted in prosecuting inconsequential cases or
cases in which the violation is only technical. Thus, in determining
whether a substantial Federal interest exists that requires prosecution,
the attorney for the government should consider the nature and
seriousness of the offense involved. A number of factors may be
relevant. One factor that is obviously of primary importance is the
actual or potential impact of the offense on the community and on the
victim.

The impact of an offense on the community in which it is committed can
be measured in several ways: in terms of economic harm done to community
interests; in terms of physical danger to the citizens or damage to
public property; and in terms of erosion of the inhabitants\' peace of
mind and sense of security. In assessing the seriousness of the offense
in these terms, the prosecutor may properly weigh such questions as
whether the violation is technical or relatively inconsequential in
nature and what the public attitude is toward prosecution under the
circumstances of the case. The public may be indifferent, or even
opposed, to enforcement of the controlling statute whether on
substantive grounds, or because of a history of nonenforcement, or
because the offense involves essentially a minor matter of private
concern and the victim is not interested in having it pursued. On the
other hand, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the identity of
the offender or the victim, or the attendant publicity, may be such as
to create strong public sentiment in favor of prosecution. While public
interest, or lack thereof, deserves the prosecutor\'s careful attention,
it should not be used to justify a decision to prosecute, or to take
other action, that cannot be supported on other grounds. Public and
professional responsibility sometimes will require the choosing of a
particularly unpopular course.

Economic, physical, and psychological considerations are also important
in assessing the impact of the offense on the victim. In this
connection, it is appropriate for the prosecutor to take into account
such matters as the victim\'s age or health, and whether full or partial
restitution has been made. Care should be taken in weighing the matter
of restitution, however, to ensure against contributing to an impression
that an offender can escape prosecution merely by returning the spoils
of his/her crime.

3.Deterrent Effect of Prosecution. Deterrence of criminal conduct,
whether it be criminal activity generally or a specific type of criminal
conduct, is one of the primary goals of the criminal law. This purpose
should be kept in mind, particularly when deciding whether a prosecution
is warranted for an offense that appears to be relatively minor; some
offenses, although seemingly not of great importance by themselves, if
commonly committed would have a substantial cumulative impact on the
community.

4.The Person\'s Culpability. Although the prosecutor has sufficient
evidence of guilt, it is nevertheless appropriate for him/her to give
consideration to the degree of the person\'s culpability in connection
with the offenses, both in the abstract and in comparison with any
others involved in the offense. If for example, the person was a
relatively minor participant in a criminal enterprise conducted by
others, or his/her motive was worthy, and no other circumstances require
prosecution, the prosecutor might reasonably conclude that some course
other than prosecution would be appropriate.

5.The Person\'s Criminal History. If a person is known to have a prior
conviction or is reasonably believed to have engaged in criminal
activity at an earlier time, this should, be considered in determining
whether to initiate or recommend Federal prosecution. In this connection
particular attention should be given to the nature of the person\'s
prior criminal involvement, when it occurred, its relationship if any to
the present offense, and whether he/she previously avoided prosecution
as a result of an agreement not to prosecute in return for cooperation
or as a result of an order compelling his/her testimony. By the same
token, a person\'s lack of prior criminal involvement or his/her
previous cooperation with the law enforcement officials should be given
due consideration in appropriate cases.

6.The Person\'s Willingness to Cooperate. A person\'s willingness to
cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others is another
appropriate consideration in the determination whether a Federal
prosecution should be undertaken. Generally speaking, a willingness to
cooperate should not by itself relieve a person of criminal liability.
There may be some cases, however, in which the value of a person\'s
cooperation clearly outweighs the Federal interest in prosecuting
him/her. These matters are discussed more fully below, in connection
with plea agreements and non-prosecution agreements in return for
cooperation.

7.The Person\'s Personal Circumstances. In some cases, the personal
circumstances of an accused may be relevant in determining whether to
prosecute or to take other action. Some circumstances peculiar to the
accused, such as extreme youth, advanced age, or mental or physical
impairment, may suggest that prosecution is not the most appropriate
response to his/her offense; other circumstances, such as the fact that
the accused occupied a position of trust or responsibility which he/she
violated in committing the offense, might weigh in favor of prosecution.

8.The Probable Sentence. In assessing the strength of the Federal
interest in prosecution, the attorney for the government should consider
the sentence, or other consequence, that is likely to be imposed if
prosecution is successful, and whether such a sentence or other
consequence would justify the time and effort of prosecution. If the
offender is already subject to a substantial sentence, or is already
incarcerated, as a result of a conviction for another offense, the
prosecutor should weigh the likelihood that another conviction will
result in a meaningful addition to his/her sentence, might otherwise
have a deterrent effect, or is necessary to ensure that the offender\'s
record accurately reflects the extent of his/her criminal conduct. For
example, it might be desirable to commence a bail-jumping prosecution
against a person who already has been convicted of another offense so
that law enforcement personnel and judicial officers who encounter
him/her in the future will be aware of the risk of releasing him/her on
bail. On the other hand, if the person is on probation or parole as a
result of an earlier conviction, the prosecutor should consider whether
the public interest might better be served by instituting a proceeding
for violation of probation or revocation of parole, than by commencing a
new prosecution. The prosecutor should also be alert to the desirability
of instituting prosecution to prevent the running of the statute of
limitations and to preserve the availability of a basis for an adequate
sentence if there appears to be a chance that an offender\'s prior
conviction may be reversed on appeal or collateral attack. Finally, if a
person previously has been prosecuted in another jurisdiction for the
same offense or a closely related offense, the attorney for the
government should consult existing departmental policy statements on the
subject of \"successive prosecution\" or \"dual prosecution,\" depending
on whether the earlier prosecution was Federal or nonfederal. See USAM
9-2.031 (Petite Policy).

Just as there are factors that are appropriate to consider in
determining whether a substantial Federal interest would be served by
prosecution in a particular case, there are considerations that deserve
no weight and should not influence the decision. These include the time
and resources expended in Federal investigation of the case. No amount
of investigative effort warrants commencing a Federal prosecution that
is not fully justified on other grounds.

**9-27.250 Non-Criminal Alternatives to Prosecution**

A. In determining whether prosecution should be declined because there
exists an adequate, non-criminal alternative to prosecution, the
attorney for the government should consider all relevant factors,
including:

1.The sanctions available under the alternative means of disposition;

2.The likelihood that an effective sanction will be imposed; and

3.The effect of non-criminal disposition on Federal law enforcement
interests.

B. Comment. When a person has committed a Federal offense, it is
important that the law respond promptly, fairly, and effectively. This
does not mean, however, that a criminal prosecution must be initiated.
In recognition of the fact that resort to the criminal process is not
necessarily the only appropriate response to serious forms of antisocial
activity, Congress and state legislatures have provided civil and
administrative remedies for many types of conduct that may also be
subject to criminal sanction. Examples of such non-criminal approaches
include civil tax proceedings; civil actions under the securities,
customs, antitrust, or other regulatory laws; and reference of
complaints to licensing authorities or to professional organizations
such as bar associations. Another potentially useful alternative to
prosecution in some cases is pretrial diversion. See USAM 9-22.000.

Attorneys for the government should familiarize themselves with these
alternatives and should consider pursuing them if they are available in
a particular case. Although on some occasions they should be pursued in
addition to the criminal law procedures, on other occasions they can be
expected to provide an effective substitute for criminal prosecution. In
weighing the adequacy of such an alternative in a particular case, the
prosecutor should consider the nature and severity of the sanctions that
could be imposed, the likelihood that an adequate sanction would in fact
be imposed, and the effect of such a non-criminal disposition on Federal
law enforcement interests. It should be noted that referrals for
non-criminal disposition may not include the transfer of grand jury
material unless an order under Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, has been obtained. See United States v. Sells Engineering,
Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (1983).

**9-27.260 Initiating and Declining Charges \-- Impermissible
Considerations**

A.In determining whether to commence or recommend prosecution or take
other action against a person, the attorney for the government should
not be influenced by:

1.The person\'s race, religion, sex, national origin, or political
association, activities or beliefs;

2.The attorney\'s own personal feelings concerning the person, the
person\'s associates, or the victim; or

3.The possible affect of the decision on the attorney\'s own
professional or personal circumstances.

B.Comment. USAM 9-27.260 sets forth various matters that plainly should
not influence the determination whether to initiate or recommend
prosecution or take other action. They are listed here not because it is
anticipated that any attorney for the government might allow them to
affect his/her judgment, but in order to make clear that Federal
prosecutors will not be influenced by such improper considerations. Of
course, in a case in which a particular characteristic listed in
subparagraph (1) is pertinent to the offense (for example, in an
immigration case the fact that the offender is not a United States
national, or in a civil rights case the fact that the victim and the
offender are of different races), the provision would not prohibit the
prosecutor from considering it for the purpose intended by the Congress.

**Criminal Resource Manual, 712, Pretrial Diversion**

A. Divertees are initially selected by the U.S. Attorney based on the
eligibility criteria stated in USAM 9-22.100:

1.At the pre-charge stage; or

2.At any point (prior to trial) at which a PTD agreement is effected.

B .Participation in the program by the offender is voluntary:

1.The divertee must sign a contract agreeing to waive his/her rights to
a speedy trial and presentment of his/her case within the statute of
limitations;

2.The divertee must have advice of counsel, and if he/she cannot afford
counsel, one will be appointed for him/her upon his/her application to
the Chief Pretrial Services Officer (or Chief Probation Officer).
Appointment of Counsel will be made through the United States
Magistrate. Inquiries by magistrates should be directed to the Criminal
Justice Act Division, Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
(202) 727-2800, for expenditure authorizations.

C.All information obtained in the course of making the decision to
divert an offender is confidential, except that written statements may
be used for impeachment purposes. See USA Form 185, Letter to Offender,
this Manual at 713.

D.Upon determining eligibility of an offender for PTD, the U.S. Attorney
should refer the case along with the investigative agent\'s report to
either the Chief Pretrial Services Officer or the Chief Probation
Officer for a recommendation on the potential suitability of the
offender for supervision. See USA Form 184, this Manual at 714.\|B814
The Chief Pretrial Services Officer (or the Chief Probation Officer) may
make preliminary recommendations to the U.S. Attorney. As part of the
background investigation, Pretrial Services will arrange with the United
States Marshal\'s Office to have the divertee fingerprinted and to have
such fingerprints submitted to the FBI on card FD-249. At the same time
Pretrial Services should request notification of any prior record on the
divertee from the FBI Identification Division Records.

E. If it is determined that PTD is appropriate for an offender,
supervision should be tailored to the offender\'s needs and may include
employment, counseling, education, job training, psychiatric care, etc.
Many districts have successfully required restitution or forms of
community service as part of the pretrial program. Innovative approaches
are strongly encouraged.

The program of supervision which is recommended is outlined in the PTD
Agreement, agreed upon by all parties, and administered by Pretrial
Services.

F. The Pretrial Diversion Agreement. The diversion period begins upon
execution of a Pretrial Diversion Agreement. The Agreement (USA Form
186, Criminal Resource Manual at 715) outlines the terms and conditions
of supervision and is signed by the offender, his/her attorney, the
prosecutor, and either the Chief Pretrial Services Officer or the Chief
Probation Officer. The offender must acknowledge responsibility for his
or her behavior, but is not asked to admit guilt. The period of
supervision is not to exceed 18 months, but may be reduced. In the case
of Federal employees, the PTD Agreement will not require the offender\'s
resignation from Federal service but will explicitly state that
administrative action by the Federal agency will not be precluded and
need not be delayed by the prosecutor\'s disposition of the case through
diversion. The PTD Agreement may require that the U.S. Attorney provide
a copy of the Agreement to the Federal agency by which the divertee is
employed.

The Chief Pretrial Services Officer (or the Chief Probation Officer)
shall submit an FBI Form 1-12 \"Flash Notice,\" indicating diversion and
requesting notification if an arrest occurs.

G. Successful completion of program/termination from program. The U.S.
Attorney will formally decline prosecution upon satisfactory completion
of program requirements. Notice of satisfactory completion will be
provided to the U.S.Attorney by either the Chief Pretrial Services
Officer or the Chief Probation Officer. In addition, the Chief Pretrial
Services Officer (or the Chief Probation Officer) will file an FBI
Disposition Form R-84 so that the record will indicate successful
completion/charges dropped.

H. Breach of Agreement. Upon breach of conditions of the Agreement by
the divertee, the Chief Pretrial Services Officer(or the Chief Probation
Officer) will so inform the U.S. Attorney, who, in his/her discretion,
may initiate prosecution. When prosecution is resumed, the U.S. Attorney
must furnish the offender with notice.

The decision to terminate an individual from continuing to participate
in pretrial diversion based upon breach of conditions rests exclusively
with the U.S. Attorney, with advice from either the Chief Pretrial
Services Officer or the Chief Probation Officer.

**715 USA Form 186 \-- Pretrial Diversion Agreement**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v\.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Name

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Street Address

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City and State

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

File No.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone No.

**AGREEMENT FOR PRETRIAL DIVERSION**

It appearing that you are reported to have committed an offense against
the United States on or about \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ in
violation of Title \_\_\_, United States Code, Section(s)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, in that you did:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

Upon accepting responsibility for your behavior and by your signature on
this Agreement, it appearing, after an investigation of the offense, and
your background, that the interest of the United States and your own
interest and the interest of justice will be served by the following
procedure; therefore

On the authority of the Attorney General of the United States, by
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, United States Attorney for the
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ District of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_,
prosecution in this District for this offense shall be deferred for the
period of\_\_\_\_ months from this date, provided you abide by the
following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set out
below.

Should you violate the conditions of this Agreement, the United States
Attorney may revoke or modify any conditions of this pretrial diversion
program or change the period of supervision, which shall in no case
exceed eighteen months. The United States Attorney may release you from
supervision at any time. The United States Attorney may at any time
within the period of your supervision initiate prosecution for this
offense should you violate the conditions of this Agreement. In this
case \[he/she\] will furnish you with notice specifying the conditions
of the Agreement which you have violated.

After successfully completing your diversion program and fulfilling all
the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the
offense set out on page 1 of this Agreement will be instituted in this
District, and the charges against you, if any, will be dismissed.

Neither this Agreement nor any other document filed with the United
States Attorney as a result of your participation in the Pretrial
Diversion Program will be used against you, except for impeachment
purposes, in connection with any prosecution for the above-described
offense.

General Conditions of Pretrial Diversion

1.You shall not violate any law (Federal/State/Local). You shall
immediately contact your pretrial diversion supervisor if arrested
and/or questioned by any law enforcement officer.

2.You shall attend school or work regularly at a lawful occupation or
otherwise comply with the terms of the special program described below.
If you lose your job or are unable to attend school, you shall notify
your pretrial diversion supervisor at once. You shall consult him/her
prior to job or school changes.

3.You shall report to your supervisor as directed and keep him/her
informed of your whereabouts.

4.You shall follow the program and such special conditions as may be
described below.

Special Conditions

\[description of special program\]

I assert and certify that I am aware of the fact that the Sixth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all
criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial. I also am aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment,
information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge
to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to
trial. I hereby request the United States Attorney for the
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ District of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_to defer such
prosecution. I

agree and consent that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the
date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms
expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at my request,
and I waive any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such
delay operated to deny my rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of
the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal
to the period of this agreement.

I hereby state that the above has been read and explained to me. I
understand the conditions of my pretrial diversion program and agree
that I will comply with them.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Name of divertee Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Defense Attorney Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

United States Attorney Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Chief Pretrial Services Officer Date

(or Chief Probation Officer)

USA Form 186