Opinion ID: 789452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Federal Charges and the Proffer Agreement

Text: 11 Within days of Johnson's arrest, federal authorities decided to prosecute Johnson and Leotha Barrow for crack dealing. A complaint filed December 11, 2001, in the Eastern District of New York alleged that Barrow had sold crack to a confidential informant on March 9, 2001; March 12, 2001; and April 3, 2001. It alleged that Johnson had sold crack to an undercover officer on April 19, 2001, and to a confidential informant on April 26, 2001. The complaint further charged that on May 15, 2001, after the confidential informant and the undercover officer spoke with Leotha Barrow, they met with Johnson who sold them crack. It alleged that Johnson again sold crack to the undercover officer on August 15, 2001, and on August 22, 2001. 12 A federal indictment was filed against Johnson and Leotha Barrow on March 4, 2002, charging them with conspiracy to distribute crack and substantive distribution on the aforementioned dates. 3 The following month, Johnson began to explore cooperation with prosecutors. 13 Toward that end, on April 24, 2002, Johnson signed a proffer agreement, which controlled his debriefing on that day. He signed additional agreements, identical in pertinent part, at subsequent debriefings on May 2, 2002, and June 3, 2002. The agreements uniformly represented that federal prosecutors would not use any proffer statements made by Johnson either in their case-in-chief at trial or at sentencing. Nevertheless, the agreements stated that prosecutors could use Johnson's proffer statements as leads to other evidence; as substantive evidence to cross-examine him; and as substantive evidence to rebut any evidence offered or elicited, or factual assertions made, by or on behalf of [Johnson] at any stage of a criminal prosecution (including but not limited to detention hearing, trial or sentencing). Proffer Agreement, Apr. 24, 2002, at 1; see also Proffer Agreement, May 2, 2002, at 1; Proffer Agreement, June 3, 2002, at 1. It is the quoted passage that is at issue on this appeal.