# Justice Manual § 9-27.760: Limitation on Identifying Uncharged Parties Publicly > Federal · Agency guidance · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.760 ## Section - **Citation:** Justice Manual § 9-27.760 - **Heading:** Limitation on Identifying Uncharged Parties Publicly - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Agency guidance - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** DOJ Justice Manual / Title 9: Criminal / 9-27.000 - Principles of Federal Prosecution / Justice Manual § 9-27.760 ## Text In all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged parties. In the context of public plea and sentencing proceedings, this means that, in the absence of some significant justification, it is not appropriate to identify (either by name or unnecessarily specific description), or cause a defendant to identify, a party unless that party has been publicly charged with the misconduct at issue. In the unusual instance where identification of an uncharged party during a plea or sentencing hearing is justified, and absent exigent circumstances, prosecutors should obtain the approval of the appropriate United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General prior to the hearing. See JM 9-16.500 . In other less predictable contexts, prosecutors should strive to avoid unnecessary public references to wrongdoing by uncharged parties. With respect to bills of particulars that identify unindicted co-conspirators, prosecutors generally should seek leave to file such documents under seal. Prosecutors shall comply, however, with any court order directing the public filing of a bill of particulars. As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily “no legitimate governmental interest served” by the government’s public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and this is true “[r]egardless of what criminal charges may . . . b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney against the [third party] for the future.” In re Smith , 656 F.2d 1101, 1106-07 (5th Cir. 1981). Courts have applied this reasoning to preclude the public identification of unindicted parties in plea hearings, sentencing memoranda, and other government pleadings. See Finn v. Schiller , 72 F.3d 1182 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Briggs , 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975); United States. v Anderson , 55 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Kan 1999); United States v. Smith , 992 F. Supp. 743 (D.N.J. 1998); see also JM 9-11.130 . d this reasoning to preclude the public identification of unindicted parties in plea hearings, sentencing memoranda, and other government pleadings. See Finn v. Schiller , 72 F.3d 1182 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Briggs , 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975); United States. v Anderson , 55 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Kan 1999); United States v. Smith , 992 F. Supp. 743 (D.N.J. 1998); see also JM 9-11.130 . In most cases, any legitimate governmental interest in referring to uncharged parties can be advanced through means other than those condemned in this line of cases. For example, in those cases where the offense to which a defendant is pleading guilty requires as an element that a third party have a particular status ( e.g. , 18 U.S.C. § 203(a)(2), Unlawful Compensation to Members of Congress), the third party can usually be referred to generically (“a Member of Congress”), rather than identified specifically (“Senator X”). Similarly, when the defendant engaged in joint criminal conduct with others, generic references (“another individual”) to the uncharged parties are typically sufficient for purposes of a guilty plea. For the same reasons, following the conclusion of a case (whether by closing of an investigation or conclusion of a prosecution), DOJ personnel should not publicly disclose the identity (either by name or unnecessarily specific description) of uncharged parties absent approval of the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, or their designee. When evaluating whether to grant approval, the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, or their designee, may consider factors such as: ion of a prosecution), DOJ personnel should not publicly disclose the identity (either by name or unnecessarily specific description) of uncharged parties absent approval of the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, or their designee. When evaluating whether to grant approval, the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, or their designee, may consider factors such as: The privacy, safety, and reputational interests of uncharged parties; The potential effect of any statements on ongoing criminal investigations or prosecutions, see JM 1-7.600 , 1-7.610 ; Whether public disclosure may advance significant law enforcement interests, such as where release of information is necessary to protect public safety or uphold the integrity of the law enforcement investigation; and Other legitimate and compelling governmental interests, including whether the public has a significant need to know the information. Public statements concerning the identity of uncharged parties following the conclusion of a case are permissible only if the legitimate and compelling government interests served, including law enforcement interests, substantially outweigh the privacy and reputational interests of the uncharged parties. To the extent a public statement regarding uncharged parties meets this standard and is otherwise permitted by law, such disclosure must be limited to the extent necessary to advance the government interests served by the disclosure. d compelling government interests served, including law enforcement interests, substantially outweigh the privacy and reputational interests of the uncharged parties. To the extent a public statement regarding uncharged parties meets this standard and is otherwise permitted by law, such disclosure must be limited to the extent necessary to advance the government interests served by the disclosure. Significant justification for identifying uncharged parties commonly exists where it is ordered by the Court, is necessary to protect the integrity of the case, or assists the government in meeting its burden of proof. In these instances, the use of generalized terms or descriptions may be unfeasible or insufficient or may create confusion or false impressions for the judge or jury. For example, in conspiracy trials, the identity and conduct of uncharged parties are often highly relevant to the government’s case, and it is not feasible to shield that individual’s identity in proving the case. In such instances where significant justification exists relating to court proceedings and pleadings, prior approval by the appropriate United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General is not necessary. [updated February 2024] ## Nearby sections - [Justice Manual § 9-27.001 Preface](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.001.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.110 Purpose](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.110.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.120 Application](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.120.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.130 Implementation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.130.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.140 Modifications or Departures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.140.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.150 Non-Litigability](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.150.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.200 Initiating and Declining Prosecution—Probable Cause Requirement](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.200.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.220 Grounds for Commencing or Declining Prosecution](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.220.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.230 Initiating and Declining Charges—Substantial Federal Interest](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.230.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.240 Initiating and Declining Charges—Prosecution in Another Jurisdiction](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.240.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.250 Non-Criminal Alternatives to Prosecution](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.250.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.260 Initiating and Declining Charges—Impermissible Considerations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.260.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.270 Records of Prosecutions Declined](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.270.md) - [Justice Manual § 9-27.300 Selecting Charges—Conducting an Individualized Assessment](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.300.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/JM_S9-27.760. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.