Court Opinion

ID: 9488524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:47:51.51389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:56.295739
License: Public Domain

MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS,
Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the result reached here because apparently no power on earth can compel a prosecutor to move for a downward departure, even where a suspect approaches the government before being indicted, promises to cooperate, engages in potentially dangerous undercover activities which result in the capture of another, and is later found by the court to have fully performed on his promises of cooperation.
While it is technically correct that the government did not specifically promise to move for a downward departure, its argument that it lived up to its promise to bring Murphy’s cooperation to the attention of the sentencing court — by telling the probation office what he had done — rings slightly hollow. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, only a government motion could have brought this defendant’s extraordinary cooperation to the court’s attention in a meaningful way.
In his discussions with the government, Murphy did not demand a commitment for a departure motion because, as both sides now agree, it would have been futile. When he tried to achieve the same result after the government had his cooperation in hand, they demanded that he stipulate to something he could not in good conscience do: concede that his conduct prior to cooperating amounted to obstruction of justice. Murphy even offered at this point to submit that dispute for binding determination by the court, but the government refused to agree.
In the end, the government probably did exactly what it was required to do and nothing more. In doing so, it “rewards” a cooperating defendant who performs according to his promises in good faith with its smug silence at sentencing. In the rough and tumble world of plea negotiations, perhaps it is wrong to expect more. But as a non-legal commentator once observed: rules of ethics should govern the area between what one can do and what one ought to do. Government lawyers, who may one day find their own clients on the receiving end of perfectly legal, but sharp practices, might well reflect on this.