In Rumery, Justice O`Connor agreed with the Court`s individual approach to the validity of such agreements. It also asserted that the burden of those relying on such an agreement was to prove that it was neither involuntary nor the result of an abuse of criminal procedure. As for the relevant factors, they have been; 1. the knowledge and experience of the accused and the circumstances of the execution of the acquittal, including whether the accused was counseled, are clearly relevant. 2., The nature of pending criminal complaints is also important, because the larger the accusation, the greater the coercive effect. 3., The existence of a legitimate criminal objective for obtaining release will ensure its validity. In the exercise of law enforcement functions, every attorney in the Department of Justice should be guided by these principles, and every U.S. attorney and assistant attorney general should ensure that these principles are communicated to lawyers who exercise the prosecutor`s responsibility in his or her office, under his or her authority, or under his or her authority. Comment. The provisions of this Section are intended for two purposes. First, it is important to have a written record in case of questions about the nature or extent of the agreement.

Such questions will certainly arise during the cross-examination of the witness, especially since the existence of the agreement is consistent with the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.P. 150 (1972). The exact terms of the agreement may also become relevant if the government attempts to prosecute the witness in the future for a crime. Second, such registration will facilitate the identification of government lawyers (as part of the balancing of future non-compliance agreements, pleading agreements, court distractions, and other discretionary acts) and the identification of individuals whom the government has not prosecuted. The main requirements of the written protocol are that it is sufficiently detailed so that it leaves no doubt about the obligations of the parties and that it is signed or initialled by the person with whom the agreement is concluded and by his lawyer or, at the very least, by one of them. JM 9-27.300 also expresses the principle that an accused should generally be prosecuted for the most serious crimes that are concerned with his conduct and that are easily justifiable. As noted above, it normally applies to offences that are most substantial, including mandatory minimum sentences.