Selecting Charges—Conducting an Individualized Assessment

Once a determination has been made that prosecution would satisfy the requirements set forth in

JM 9-27.220

–

9-27.250

, the prosecutor must select the most appropriate charges. Ordinarily, those charges will include the most serious offense that is encompassed by the defendant’s conduct and that is likely to result in a sustainable conviction. In selecting the appropriate charges, however, prosecutors should consider whether the consequences of those charges for sentencing would yield a result that is proportional to the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct, and whether the charge achieves such purposes of the criminal law as punishment, protection of the public, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation. Such decisions should be informed by an individualized assessment of all the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The goal in any prosecution is a sanction that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to satisfy these considerations.

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. Each United States Attorney’s Office and litigating division of the Department is required to promulgate written guidance describing its internal indictment review process.

Prosecutors have an ongoing obligation to evaluate a case and the provable evidence, even after offenses have been charged. If a prosecutor determines that, as a result of a change in the evidence or for another reason, a charge is no longer readily provable or appropriate, the prosecutor should dismiss those charges, consistent with the written policies of the district or litigating division and the

Principles of Federal Prosecution

.

to evaluate a case and the provable evidence, even after offenses have been charged. If a prosecutor determines that, as a result of a change in the evidence or for another reason, a charge is no longer readily provable or appropriate, the prosecutor should dismiss those charges, consistent with the written policies of the district or litigating division and the

Principles of Federal Prosecution

.

Comment.

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. Typically, however, a defendant will have committed more than one criminal act and his/her conduct may be prosecuted under more than one statute. 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.

At the outset, the attorney for the government should bear in mind that he/she will have to introduce at trial admissible evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, or else the government will suffer a dismissal, or a reversal on appeal. For this reason, he/she should not include in an information, or recommend in an indictment, charges that he/she cannot reasonably expect to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient and admissible evidence at trial.

will have to introduce at trial admissible evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, or else the government will suffer a dismissal, or a reversal on appeal. For this reason, he/she should not include in an information, or recommend in an indictment, charges that he/she cannot reasonably expect to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient and admissible evidence at trial.

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.S.C. § 201 require proof of "corrupt intent," while the '"gratuity" provisions do not. Similarly, the "two witness" rule applies to perjury prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 but not under 18 U.S.C. § 1623.

[cited in

JM 9-27.400

;

JM 9-28.1200

;

JM 9-100.020

]

[updated June 2023]