Some states have tried to hold prosecutors to account for compliance by requiring certification from prosecutors who try to speak to the victim. For example, in Arizona, comment. This section is intended to assist federal lawyers and those whose agreement they must obtain when deciding whether a person`s cooperation appears to be necessary in the public interest. The considerations listed here are not considered an exhaustive list or require a particular decision in a particular case. Rather, they are intended to draw the decision-maker`s attention to factors that, in most cases, are likely to be controlled. The filing of information under the . C 21 U.S. 851 on convictions that have been prejudiced is a strengthening of the sentence, not a criminal offence, and should be prosecuted if it is deemed appropriate in the exercise of the prosecutor`s discretion and in all circumstances. Factors that should be considered include the seriousness of the current offence, the nature and age of the anticipated conviction, the co-operation of the accused and liability for his or her criminal behaviour and all other mitigating and aggravating factors. When an accused commits one or more „violent or drug trafficking crimes“ with a firearm, a minimum of 18 states.C.
In many cases, depending on the seriousness of the criminal activity and the criminal history of the offender, it will be appropriate to charge and prosecute several 924 (c) offences. The question of the extent to which innocent people accept a plea and plead guilty is controversial and has been the subject of an action. Many researches have focused on relatively unproven cases where innocence has subsequently been proven, such as successful appeals to murder and rape on the basis of DNA evidence, which are generally atypical for trials as a whole (by nature only the most serious types of crimes). Other studies have focused on presenting hypothetical situations to subjects and the choice they would make. More recently, some studies have attempted to examine the real reactions of innocent people in general when faced with real advocacy decisions. A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate a true controlled advocacy situation, rather than requiring theoretical answers to a theoretical situation – a common approach in previous research.  She put the subjects in a situation where a charge of academic fraud (fraud) could be laid, some of which were in fact man of the order (and knew it), and some were innocent, but were apparently confronted with solid evidence of guilt and had no verifiable evidence of innocence.