The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Has There Never Been A Deferred Prosecution Agreement For A Public Official?
"That prospect explains the absence of deferred prosecution agreements involving public officials."
Since Judge Ho appointed Paul Clement as an amicus in the Eric Adams case, I have been trying to find an answer to a question: has there ever been a deferred prosecution agreement for a public official. The United States routinely enters into civil consent decrees with public officials. And the United States enters into deferred prosecution agreements with government contractors. At least in the case of Boeing, the government was likely motivated by a concern that barring the aerospace giant would impact American interests.
But I've asked around, and could not find an answer to my question about DPAs for public officials.
Clement's brief makes this assertion:
There is an inherent risk that once an indictment has been procured, the prospect of re-indictment could create the appearance, if not the reality, that the actions of a public official are being driven by concerns about staying in the good graces of the federal executive, rather than the best interests of his constituents. That prospect explains the absence of deferred prosecution agreements involving public officials.
Clement does not offer a citation. I realize it is hard to prove a negative here. How can you show that something has never happened? What if the government has used a DPA for a public official? And though I take officer stuff carefully, Clement does not distinguish between elected and appointed officials. What about civil servants? Has there really never been any person in government who received a DPA from the federal government? And if the answer is yes, then why would Mayor Adams be different.
I often tell my students to never say the word never. If someone finds a single instance where something happened, your argument is shot.
Let's see what turns up.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I think the burden is on you, Josh - find one. I've got $5 says you won't find a DPA involving an elected official currently in office.
Yes.
Prof. Blackman didn't make the assertion. Paul Clement did.
If Paul Clement says "never", then you can't ask him for proof of that. How is he supposed to provide it?
It's not logically impossible for Clement to provide such proof. It's only pragmatically impractical.
If I make the claim that the San Diego Padres baseball team has never won a World Series, and you demand proof, the way I'd have to provide that proof is to list all of the world series and show that none of them were won by the Padres.
Likewise, it is not logically impossible for Clement to make some sort of list of prior cases involving public officials, and show that none of them involved a DPA.
A large task for sure, but not impossible. Clement doesn't even need to do this though, because with the brief now public, citizens of the bar, internet, and world will find the case(s) that used a DPA, if they exist. Even if some are found, they may be distinguishable.
Clement is old (just under 60), but not that old. He's probably been around long enough to know about what he speaks, but maybe not.
Sure you can ask him that. Clement is the one making the assertion and thus bears the burden of proving his statement.
Otherwise any "never" statement is by default taken as true and shifts the burden to one's opponent to scour the records and find a counterfactual.
That's not the way argument works.
If I say that I have never once had an impure thought in my entire life must that statement be accepted as absolutely true as nobody can provide a printout of my thought history showing otherwise?
As I noted, Clement did not say that there has never been such a deferred prosecution: that’s just Prof. Blackman’s typical sloppiness at play here.
Yes, but Blackman is a heckler on the internet and Clement is speaking to a court. Clement owes Blackman nothing and probably doesn't know he exists. If Blackman can't make his argument without Clement's assistance then it should be dismissed out of hand.
Can't read?
Two errors.
DOJ policy does require the deputy attorney general to approve pretrial diversion for a public official, so I would imagine it doesn’t come up very much. Which, incidentally, is all that Clement appears to be asserting.
I'm glad you found a hypothetical way out of the box you put yourself in. Now you just need to find some research assistants.
If only one of the two of us were paid to do research on legal issues untethered to any actual clients.
Also very curious as to who he asked when he asked around. Doesn’t strike me as a guy who is tight with current or former PIN attorneys.
You are a moron
Using federal indictments, DPAs and the threat of re-indictment to commandeer elected officials within a state to enforce federal policy. Clever. Might make for an interesting and novel law review article.
Is the government trying to enter a deferred prosecution agreement? If not, why use the construction in this hypothetical?
"If someone finds a single instance where something happened, your argument is shot" -- not here: if something is so rare that it's hard to find, there's good reason for that, and that's reason enough not to do it. Especially when the reason for the rarity is obvious.
yes
"Clement does not offer a citation. I realize it is hard to prove a negative here."
Asked and answered, also answering a second question: is Blackman an idiot? Yes, yes he is.
It certainly should be apparent, from a litigator of Clement's stature, that he wouldn't write such a thing if he hadn't conducted his own search.
Clement could have asked ChatGPT to write this brief, for all we know. The judge just wanted another opinion, and ChatGPT's opinion might be as good as Clement's.
True, but as we've recently seen, ChatGPT could indeed "hallucinate" a (non-existent) citation. Maybe that's why Blackman is hoping for.
In fact Clement clarifies "absence" later on :
"amicus is not aware of any example of a DPA involving a public official who continues to serve"
So he's not claiming that there has never been one, merely that he is unaware of one.
I think Josh is getting overexcited.
Instead he should be getting more excited by the masterly way in which Clement insisted first that the judge must decide between "with" and "without" prejudice; and then lectured us on the evils of "without prejudice" dismissals ... without ever mentioning how we might identify a "without prejudice" one that was justified.
Top quality lawyering.
I think Josh is getting overexcited.
It's his default position.
heh
This i
Appears to be a state one: https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2013/04/01/mayor-enters-deferred-prosecution-deal-on-dui-charges/31861896007/
This is federal: https://easyreadernews.com/obagi-jr-u-s-attorney-reach-agreement-to-defer-prosecution/?fbclid=IwY2xjawI4l0dleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRJsaFzj-m8O8MCm2-8JZcEGNdLKOYQDF2-EraFzmZhsFnkiHqhjcOAbKw_aem_fvCn6jZFXsW-IEdvfPYRUg
That's not an apposite example. The defendant in that case happened to hold a minor public office, but his offenses were committed in a purely private capacity, and it doesn't appear from the article that any conditions were imposed relating to the performance of his public duties.
It may be small, but it’s entirely apposite. Clement’s argument is that a DPA involving a public official is a no-no because of the perception that the prosecutors might influence his public actions because of the grip they retain on his cojones.
Whether the crime alleged has anything to do with his public acts and whether there is explicit mention in the DPA of conditions relating to public duties play no part at all in Clement’s argument.
Federal Judge Mark Fuller was given pretrial adjudication in state court. The agreement didn't require his resignation, although he never heard another case and resigned to avoid being impeached.
You stay classy, San Diego: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/former-san-diego-mayor-squanders-billion-dollars-then-raids-charitable-foundation-pay