federal government's practice of giving certain defendants

[sandywang5230]

should take definitive action now. Instead of "reviewing the situation," they should collectively suspend their corporate relationships with FIFA. This definitive statement can reshape soccer and restore integrity. This is one of a series of posts discussing what the FIFA case might tell us about the American criminal justice system. Click here for the introduction, here for "Part 1: Pretrial Publicity," and here for "Part 2: How the Government's Story Develops.".The announcements that several defendants in the FIFA case have pled guilty and are cooperating with the government signaled that this case will showcase one of the most controversial aspects of the American justice system -- the federal government's practice of giving certain defendants more lenient sentences in exchange for their testimony against others.The practice is straightforward. In many multi-defendant cases, initial targets are told what types of sentences they can expect upon conviction, and then given the opportunity to reduce those sentences through "cooperation" -- typically in the form of testimony against other defendants. The reductions can be dramatic; sentences that would otherwise be measured in decades can drop to a few years or even probation. It's common knowledge among both prosecutors and defense attorneys that this type of "cooperation" is often a defendant's most realistic shot at salvaging some part of the rest of his life.It's also a deeply troubling system. Whether it's even remotely compatible with fairness and justice depends on how it works in practice. If, as prosecutors contend, "cooperation credit" is simply a reward for "telling the truth," it's at least theoretically legitimate. If, on the other hand, it's a way of essentially purchasing specific testimony -- "if you say X, you'll get less time" -- we'd probably all agree that such a practice is deeply repugnant and thoroughly inconsistent with any notion of fair play.In fact, it's the second of those descriptions that best fits the federal cooperation system, as anyone who's seen the system at work FIFA Coins knows. Here's why.First, if prosecutors merely want to compel someone's testimony without seeking to influence the content of that testimony, they don't have to offer any sentencing leniency. Testifying in a criminal case isn't optional; a prosecutor can simply serve a subpoena on a witness, at which point the witness is legally compelled to show up and testify under oath. If the witness "takes the Fifth" and claims that his testimony might be self-incriminating -- one of the few legally recognized ways a subpoenaed witness can avoid testifying -- the prosecutors can get an "immunity" order guaranteeing that the testimony won't be used against him, at which point he has to testify.