Doe v. Hammond’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Most corporate plea agreement provide a non-prosecution agreement for company employees who cooperate fully in the investigation. Yet certain culpable employees, employees who refuse to cooperate, and employees against whom the Division is still developing evidence may not receive protection under the company plea agree ment. These individuals are often referred to as "carve outs," meaning they are excluded (or "carved out”) of the company deal. Culpable carve outs must negotiate separate plea agreement or face indictment. Most companies place a high value on minimizing the number of carve outs. Second-in companies that cooperate early in an investigation often have the advantage of being able to offer new and significant evidence through multiple employees. When this is the case, the Division will typically carve out only the highest culpable individuals as well as any employees who refuse to cooperate; mid-to-lower level employees who provide significant evidence furthering the investigation will be offered non-prosecution under the corporate plea agreement. In addition, those employees who are carved out often are able to negotiate more favorable deals because they are in a position to offer valuable cooperation early on in an investigation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. · 530 F. Supp. 2d 136 - United States v. Qantas Airways Ltd.

2. “[W]e have never read Rule 6(e) to require that a “veil of secrecy be drawn over all matters occurring in the world that happen to be investigated by a grand jury.” Indeed, we have said that “[t]he disclosure of information ‘coincidentally before the grand jury [which can] be revealed in such a manner that its revelation would not elucidate the inner workings of the grand jury’ is not prohibited.” ... The[ ] purposes [of Rule 6(e) ], as well as the text of the Rule itself, reflect the need to preserve the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings themselves. It is therefore necessary to differentiate between statements by a prosecutor’s office with respect to its own investigation, and statements by a prosecutor’s office with respect to a grand jury’s investigation, a distinction of the utmost significance upon which several circuits have already remarked .... Information actually presented to the grand jury is core Rule 6(e) material that is afforded the broadest possible protection from disclosure. Prosecutors’ statements about their investigations, however, implicate the Rule only when they directly reveal grand jury matters.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 530 F. Supp. 2d 136 - United States v. Qantas Airways Ltd.

3. “[D]ue process protection is not limited to accusations against the uncharged in an indictment, but rather extends to other criminal accusations made by a government attorney, including accusations in factual proffers and other court memo-randa. See In re Smith, 656 F.2d at 1106 (explaining that “in Briggs , [the court] found that the liberty and property concepts of the Fifth Amendment protect an individual from being publicly and officially accused of having committed a serious crime,” and that this holding extended to statements made by government counsel at a plea hearing); Anderson, 55 F.Supp.2d at 1167 (“In Smith , the Fifth Circuit extended the Briggs rule well beyond the grand jury context, and ordered other court filings and records naming an unindieted co-conspirator sealed and struck.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 530 F. Supp. 2d 136 - United States v. Qantas Airways Ltd.