What is prosecution in law

Britannica English: Translation of prosecution for Arabic Speakers. Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free! Log in Sign Up. Save Word. Definition of prosecution. Examples of prosecution in a Sentence There has been an increase in prosecutions for gun-related crimes.

The defendant is awaiting prosecution. The prosecution called their first witness. The prosecution rests, Your Honor. The defense told the jury that the prosecution had not proved its case. Recent Examples on the Web The last successful prosecution was during the Watergate era, when a judge found G.

Gordon Liddy guilty in , according to Reuters and Politico. Dugan, Rolling Stone , 9 Oct. Areddy, WSJ , 30 Sep. From the Cambridge English Corpus. Relative to the size of the populations involved, prosecutions by provincial excise departwas or one to only 6, persons. In order to maintain credibility, informers had to pass information to agencies of sufficient quality to ensure successful conversion into prosecutions.

In policy terms low prosecutions are most likely when the judicial system is in need of institutional reform. The statistics are limited in that they do not indicate the outcomes of prosecutions or proceedings. Criminal prosecutions at the assizes almost invariably began by the submitting of bills of indictment, and supporting depositions, to the grand jury. Strong resistance and threats of legal prosecutions thus characterized the process of adaptation. The aim of presenting the evidence is to corroborate the prosecution's theory of the crime.

On an ideological level, prosecutions may be difficult to achieve. Unsurprisingly, prosecutions for poaching plummeted precisely in areas of the country where the late nineteenth-century revolution in food supply and diet was most evident. The pattern is even more clearly demonstrated when domestic violence and the - frequently studied - prosecutions for witchcraft are considered. Data on crimes and population refer to areas policed by county constabularies; prosecutions in boroughs were minimal.

In this respect, the outcomes of these cases may be contrasted with the much less forgiving reactions of juries in livestock theft prosecutions. Most of these prosecutions were aimed at a handful of publications, so at any given time a great deal of arguably seditious material circulated freely. Just over half of the libel prosecutions of ended in some sort of sentence for the defendant, usually a few months in gaol. See all examples of prosecution.

These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors. Collocations with prosecution. Click on a collocation to see more examples of it. From the Hansard archive. Example from the Hansard archive. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.

See all collocations with prosecution. Translations of prosecution in Chinese Traditional. A determination to prosecute represents a policy judgment that the fundamental interests of society require the application of federal criminal law to a particular set of circumstances—recognizing both that serious violations of federal law must be prosecuted, and that prosecution entails profound consequences for the accused, crime victims, and their families whether or not a conviction ultimately results.

Other prosecutorial decisions can be equally significant. Decisions, for example, regarding the specific charges to be brought, or concerning plea dispositions, effectively determine the range of sanctions that may be imposed for criminal conduct. The rare decision to consent to pleas of nolo contendere may affect the success of related civil suits for recovery of damages.

And the government's position during the sentencing process will help ensure that the court imposes a sentence consistent with 18 U. These principles of federal prosecution have been designed to assist in structuring the decision-making process of attorneys for the government. For the most part, they have been cast in general terms with a view to providing guidance rather than to mandating results.

The intent is to assure regularity without regimentation, and to prevent unwarranted disparity without sacrificing necessary flexibility. The availability of this statement of principles to federal law enforcement officials and to the public serves two important purposes: ensuring the fair and effective exercise of prosecutorial discretion and responsibility by attorneys for the government, and promoting confidence on the part of the public and individual defendants that important prosecutorial decisions will be made rationally and objectively on the merits of each case.

The principles provide convenient reference points for the process of making prosecutorial decisions; they facilitate the task of training new attorneys in the proper discharge of their duties; they contribute to more effective management of the government's limited prosecutorial resources by promoting greater consistency among the prosecutorial activities of all United States Attorney's offices and between their activities and the Department's law enforcement priorities; they make possible better coordination of investigative and prosecutorial activity by enhancing the understanding of investigating departments and agencies of the considerations underlying prosecutorial decisions by the Department; and they inform the public of the careful process by which prosecutorial decisions are made.

Important though these principles are to the proper operation of our federal prosecutorial system, the success of that system must rely ultimately on the character, integrity, sensitivity, and competence of those men and women who are selected to represent the public interest in the federal criminal justice process. It is with their help that these principles have been prepared, and it is with their efforts that the purposes of these principles will be achieved.

The principles of federal prosecution set forth herein are intended to promote the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial discretion by attorneys for the government with respect to:.

Under the federal criminal justice system, the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when, whom, how, and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of federal criminal law.

The prosecutor's broad discretion in such areas as initiating or foregoing prosecutions, selecting or recommending specific charges, and terminating prosecutions by accepting guilty pleas has been recognized on numerous occasions by the courts. See, e. LaBonte, U. Boles , U. Fokker Services B. United States , F. Ratzenbach , F. This discretion exists by virtue of the prosecutor's status as a member of the Executive Branch, and the President's responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that the laws of the United States be "faithfully executed.

See Nader v. Saxbe , F. Since federal prosecutors have great latitude in making crucial decisions concerning enforcement of a nationwide system of criminal justice, it is desirable, in the interest of the fair and effective administration of justice, that all federal prosecutors be guided by a general statement of principles that summarizes appropriate considerations to be weighed, and desirable practices to be followed, in discharging their prosecutorial responsibilities.

Although these principles deal with the specific situations indicated, they should be read in the broader context of the basic responsibilities of federal attorneys: making certain that the general purposes of the criminal law—assurance of warranted punishment, deterrence of further criminal conduct, protection of the public from offenders, and rehabilitation of offenders—are adequately met, while making certain also that the rights of individuals are scrupulously protected.

However, it is not intended that reference to these principles will require a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case. Rather, these principles are set forth solely for the purpose of assisting attorneys for the government in determining how best to exercise their authority in the performance of their duties.

Each United States Attorney and responsible Assistant Attorney General should establish internal office procedures to ensure:. One purpose of such procedures should be to ensure consistency in the decisions within each office by regularizing the decision -making process so that decisions are made at the appropriate level of responsibility.

A second purpose, equally important, is to provide appropriate remedies for serious, unjustified departures from sound prosecutorial principles. The United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General may also wish to establish internal procedures for appropriate review and documentation of decisions. United States Attorneys may modify or depart from the principles set forth herein as necessary in the interests of fair and effective law enforcement within the district.

Any modification or departure contemplated as a matter of policy or regular practice must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. Similarly, Assistant Attorneys General overseeing prosecuting components may modify or depart from the principles set forth herein in the interests of fair and effective law enforcement, and any modification or departure contemplated by an Assistant Attorney General as a matter of policy or regular practice must be approved by the Deputy Attorney General.

Although these materials are designed to promote consistency in the application of federal criminal laws, they are not intended to produce rigid uniformity among federal prosecutors in all areas of the country at the expense of the fair administration of justice. Different offices face different conditions and have different requirements. In recognition of these realities, and in order to maintain the flexibility necessary to respond fairly and effectively to local conditions, each United States Attorney and Assistant Attorney General overseeing prosecuting components is authorized to modify or depart from these principles, as necessary in the interests of fair and effective law enforcement within the district.

In situations in which a significant modification or departure is contemplated as a matter of policy or regular practice, the appropriate Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General must approve the action before it is adopted. These principles, and internal office procedures adopted pursuant to them, are intended solely for the guidance of attorneys for the government.

They are not intended to create a substantive or procedural right or benefit, enforceable at law , and may not be relied upon by a party to litigation with the United States. The Principles of Federal Prosecution have been developed purely as matter of internal Departmental policy and are being provided to federal prosecutors solely for their own guidance in performing their duties.

Neither this statement of principles nor any internal procedures adopted by individual offices create any rights or benefits.

By setting forth this fact explicitly, JM In the event that an attempt is made to litigate any aspect of these principles, to litigate any internal office procedures, or to litigate the applicability of such principles or procedures to a particular case, the attorney for the government should oppose the attempt.

The attorney for the government should also notify the Department of the litigation if there is a reasonable possibility the government may face an adverse decision on the litigation or if a court renders an adverse decision. JM The probable cause standard is the same standard required for the issuance of an arrest warrant or a summons upon a complaint see Fed.

See Branzburg v. Hayes , U. This is, of course, a threshold consideration only. 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 or other measures as well. Evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction is required under Rule 29 a of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 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 attorney for the government believes that the admissible evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact.

Thus, for example, it would be proper to commence or recommend a prosecution even though a key witness may be out of the country, so long as there is a good faith basis to believe that the witness's presence at trial could reasonably be expected. 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, based on the circumstances, that the jury would convict.

It is left to the judgment of the attorney for the government to determine whether these circumstances exist. In exercising that judgment, the attorney for the government should consult JM In determining whether a prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest, the attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations, including:.

The list of relevant considerations is not intended to be all-inclusive. Moreover, 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. 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 may be 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 non-enforcement, 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 is not supported on other grounds.

Public and professional responsibility sometimes will require the choosing of a particularly unpopular course. There are also considerations that deserve no weight and should not influence the decision, such as the time and resources already 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. In determining whether prosecution should be declined because the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction, the attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations, including When declining prosecution, or reviewing whether federal prosecution should be initiated, the attorney for the government should: 1 consider whether to discuss the matter under review with state, local, or tribal law enforcement authorities for further investigation or prosecution; and 2 coordinate with those authorities as appropriate.

The attorney for the government should be especially aware of the need to coordinate with state, local, and tribal law enforcement authorities, and shall do so as permitted by law, when declining a matter that involves an ongoing threat or relates to acts of violence or abuse against vulnerable victims, including minors.

The attorney for the government should document these coordination efforts, where undertaken, when federal prosecution is declined.

In many instances, it may be possible to prosecute criminal conduct in more than one jurisdiction. Although there may be instances in which a federal prosecutor may wish to consider deferring to prosecution in another federal district, or to another government, in most instances the choice will probably be between federal prosecution and prosecution by state or local authorities. The factors listed in JM In determining whether there exists an adequate, non-criminal alternative to prosecution, the attorney for the government should consider all relevant factors, including:.

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 commenced. 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 False Claims Act or other statutory causes of action for false or fraudulent claims; civil actions under the securities, customs, antitrust, or other regulatory laws; administrative suspension and debarment or exclusion proceedings; civil judicial and administrative forfeiture; 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 JM 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 criminal prosecution, on other occasions these alternatives 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 or other measures 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.

When considering whether to pursue a non-criminal disposition, prosecutors should consider the interests of any victims and be aware that any fines collected under such agreement will not be deposited into the Crime Victims Fund, but will rather go to the General Treasury.

See Comment to JM 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 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is obtained. See United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc. 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:. 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, in a terrorism case the fact that the individual is part of a terrorist organization that uses violence in part for political ends, 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 such a characteristic for the purpose intended by the Congress.

When prosecution is declined in serious cases on the understanding that action will be taken by other authorities, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the matter receives their attention.

Once the decision to prosecute has been made, the attorney for the government should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offenses. By definition, the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences. However, there will be circumstances in which good judgment would lead a prosecutor to conclude that a strict application of the above charging policy is not warranted.

In that case, prosecutors should carefully consider whether an exception may be justified. Consistent with longstanding Department of Justice policy, any decision to vary from the policy must be approved by a United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, or a supervisor designated by the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, and the reasons must be documented in the file.

To ensure consistency and accountability, charging and plea agreement decisions must be reviewed by a supervisory attorney. All but the most routine indictments should be accompanied by a prosecution memorandum that identifies the charging options supported by the evidence and the law and explains the charging decision therein.

Once it has been determined to commence prosecution, either by filing a complaint or an information, or by seeking an indictment from the grand jury, the attorney for the government must determine what charges to file or recommend.

When the conduct in question consists of a single criminal act, or when there is only one applicable statute, this is not a difficult task. Moreover, the selection of charges may be complicated further by the fact that different statutes have different proof requirements and provide substantially different penalties. In such cases, considerable care is required to ensure selection of the proper charge or charges.

In addition to reviewing the concerns that prompted the decision to prosecute in the first instance, particular attention should be given to the need to ensure that the prosecution will be both fair and effective.

In connection with the evidentiary basis for the charges selected, the prosecutor should also be particularly mindful of the different requirements of proof under different statutes covering similar conduct. For example, the bribe provisions of 18 U. Similarly, the "two witness" rule applies to perjury prosecutions under 18 U. As noted above, this ordinarily will be the offenses that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences.

Where two crimes have the same statutory maximum and the same guideline range, but only one contains a mandatory minimum penalty, the one with the mandatory minimum is the more serious. Similarly, in cases involving a theft or fraud offense that also involve an aggravated identity theft charge, 18 U. This principle provides the framework for ensuring equal justice in the prosecution of federal criminal offenders. Current drug laws provide for increased maximum, and in some cases minimum, penalties for many offenses based on a defendant's prior criminal convictions.

However, a court may not impose such an increased penalty unless the United States Attorney, has filed an information with the court, before trial or before entry of a plea of guilty, setting forth the previous convictions to be relied upon. See 21 U. The filing of an information under 21 U. Factors that should be considered include the seriousness of the current offense, the nature and age of the prior conviction s , whether the defendant is cooperating and has accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct and all other mitigating and aggravating factors.

In many cases, depending on the seriousness of the criminal activity and criminal history of the offender, it will be appropriate to charge and pursue multiple c offenses. Provide the basis for an appropriate sentence under all of the facts and circumstances of the case; or. It is important to the fair and efficient administration of justice in the federal system that the government bring as few charges as are necessary to ensure that justice is done.

Before filing or recommending charges pursuant to a precharge plea agreement, the attorney for the government should consult the plea agreement provisions of JM Such negotiated dispositions should be distinguished from situations in which a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere to fewer than all counts of an information or indictment in the absence of any agreement with the government. Only the former type of disposition is covered by the provisions of JM Negotiated plea dispositions are explicitly sanctioned by Rule 11 c 1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that:.

The court must not participate in these discussions. If the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere to either a charged offense or a lesser or related offense, the plea agreement may specify that an attorney for the government will:. Three types of plea agreements are encompassed by the language of JM Charge Agreements.

Charge agreements envision dismissal of counts in exchange for a plea. As with the indictment decision, the prosecutor should seek a plea to the most serious readily provable offense s charged. Should a prosecutor determine in good faith after indictment that, as a result of a change in the evidence or for another reason e. There should be documentation, however, in any case in which the most serious offense charged is not pursued.

Moreover, a decision not to prosecute a violation of federal law pursuant to Section 12 a of the Classified Information Procedures Act would trigger a reporting requirement to the Congress, and may not take place without the approval of the Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

Sentencing Agreements. There are only two types of sentence bargains. Both are permissible, but one is more complicated than the other. First, prosecutors may bargain for a sentence that is within the specified United States Sentencing Commission's guideline range.

This means that when a guideline range is 18 to 24 months, the prosecutor has discretion to agree to recommend a sentence of, for example, 18 to 20 months rather than to argue for a sentence at the top of the range. Such a plea does not require that the actual sentence range be determined in advance. The plea agreement may have wording to the effect that once the range is determined by the court, the United States will recommend a certain point in that range. Similarly, the prosecutor may agree to recommend a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility if he or she concludes in good faith that the defendant is entitled to the adjustment.

Second, the prosecutor may seek to depart from the guidelines. This is more complicated than a bargain involving a sentence within a guideline range. Departures are discussed more generally below. Department policy requires transparency and honesty in sentencing; federal prosecutors are expected to identify for the court departures when they agree to support them.

For example, it would be improper for a prosecutor to agree that a departure is in order, but to conceal the agreement in a charge bargain that is presented to a court as a fait accompli so that there is neither a record of nor judicial review of the departure. The language of JM Among the options are: taking no position regarding the sentence; not opposing the defendant's request; requesting a specific type of sentence e.

Agreement to any such option must be consistent with the sentencing guidelines. Mixed Agreements. Plea bargaining, both charge bargaining and sentence bargaining, must reflect the totality and seriousness of the defendant's conduct and any departure to which the prosecutor is agreeing, and must be accomplished through appropriate sentencing guidelines provisions. The basic policy is that charges are not to be bargained away or dropped in ways that represent a significant departure from the principles set forth herein.

There are, however, two common circumstances in which charges may be dropped consistent with these principles. First, if the applicable guideline range from which a sentence may be imposed would be unaffected, readily provable charges may be dismissed or dropped as part of a plea bargain.

It is important to know whether dropping a charge may affect a sentence, including monetary penalties such as restitution or forfeiture. It is vital that federal prosecutors understand when conduct that is not charged in an indictment or conduct that is alleged in counts that are to be dismissed pursuant to a bargain may be counted for sentencing purposes and when it may not be. For example, in the case of a defendant who could be charged with five bank robberies, a decision to charge only one or to dismiss four counts pursuant to a bargain precludes any consideration of the four uncharged or dismissed robberies in determining a guideline range, unless the plea agreement included a stipulation as to the other robberies.

By contrast, in the case of a defendant who could be charged with five counts of fraud, the total amount of money involved in a fraudulent scheme will be considered in determining a guideline range even if the defendant pleads guilty to a single count and there is no stipulation as to the other counts. Second, federal prosecutors may drop readily provable charges with the specific approval of the United States Attorney, appropriate Assistant Attorney General, or designated supervisory level official for reasons set forth in the file of the case.

This exception recognizes that the aims of the Sentencing Reform Act must be sought without ignoring other, critical aspects of the federal criminal justice system. For example, approvals to drop charges in a particular case might be given because the United States Attorney's office is particularly over-burdened, the case would be time-consuming to try, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases disposed of by the office.

In Chapter 5, Part K of the Sentencing Guidelines, the Commission has listed departures that may be considered by a court in imposing a sentence. A departure requires approval by the court. It violates the spirit of the guidelines and Department policy for prosecutor to enter into a plea bargain which is based upon the prosecutor's and the defendant's agreement that a departure is warranted, but that does not reveal to the court the existence of the departure and thereby afford the court an opportunity to reject it.

The Commission has recognized those bases for departure that are commonly justified. Accordingly, before the government may seek a departure based on a factor other than one set forth in Chapter 5, Part X, approval of the United States Attorney, appropriate Assistant Attorney General, or designated supervisory official is required. This approval is required whether or not a case is resolved through a negotiated plea. Section 5K1. Authority to approve such pleadings is limited to the United States Attorney, the Chief Assistant United States Attorney, and supervisory criminal Assistant United States Attorneys, or a committee including at least one of these individuals.

Similarly, for Department of Justice attorneys, approval authority should be vested in a Section Chief or Office Director, or such official's deputy, or in a committee which includes at least one of these individuals. Every United States Attorney or Department of Justice Section Chief or Assistant Chief or Office Director shall maintain documentation of the facts behind and justification for each substantial assistance pleading. The repository or repositories of this documentation need not be the case file itself.

Freedom of Information Act or other considerations may suggest that a separate form showing the final decision be maintained. The procedures described above shall also apply to Motions filed pursuant to Rule 35 b of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, where the sentence of a cooperating defendant is reduced after sentencing on motion of the United States. Such a filing is deemed for sentencing purposes to be the equivalent of a substantial assistance pleading.

The concession required by the government as part of a plea agreement, whether it be a "charge agreement," a "sentence agreement," or a "mixed agreement," should be weighed by the responsible government attorney in the light of the probable advantages and disadvantages of the plea disposition proposed in the particular case. Particular care should be exercised in considering whether to enter into a plea agreement pursuant to which the defendant will enter a nolo contendere plea.

As discussed in JM It violates the spirit of the guidelines and Department policy for a prosecutor to enter into a plea bargain which is based upon the prosecutor's and the defendant's agreement that a departure is warranted, but that does not reveal to the court the existence of the departure and thereby afford the court an opportunity to reject it.

Similarly, for Department of Justice attorneys, approval authority should be vested in a Section Chief or Office Director, or such official's deputy, or in a committee that includes at least one of these individuals. Every United States Attorney or Department of Justice Section Chief or Assistant Chief or Office Director shall maintain documentation of the facts behind and justification for each substantial assistance pleading in the official file.

Freedom of Information Act or other considerations may suggest that the final decision be memorialized on a separate form rather than on the recommendation itself.