Ad
related to: proffer session with federal prosecutors cases list of action
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In U.S. criminal law, a proffer agreement, proffer letter, proffer, or "Queen for a Day" letter is a written agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant or prospective witness that allows the defendant or witness to give the prosecutor information about an alleged crime, while limiting the prosecutor's ability to use that information against him or her.
The former dean of students and a counselor agreed to talk with prosecutors about the mass shooting at Oxford High School under "proffer" agreements. Prosecution releases confidential agreements ...
It is understood that Mr Giuliani’s “proffer” session with prosecutors dealt mainly with Mr Trump’s machinations during that time period as he sought to find a way to remain in the White ...
Attorney General Pam Bondi is expected to order a review of the cases brought against President Donald Trump, including those undertaken by prosecutors in New York who successfully defeated him in ...
Donald J. Trump was a federal criminal case against Donald Trump, former president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 and the current president of the United States from 2025 to 2029 regarding his alleged participation in attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election, including his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack.
During this proffer session interview, on February 1, Gates lied to FBI investigators, and this false statement made by Gates was incorporated into the plea bargain that he subsequently entered into. [4] On February 22, 2018, Mueller revealed new charges in the Manafort and Gates case, [25] [24] filed on February 21. [26]
A lawyer for Trump co-defendant Misty Hampton admitted at a hearing Wednesday that he had shared witness proffer videos of key figures in the case with a media outlet, saying he thought it was in ...
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1]