Also known as:United States Attorneys · U.S. Attorney · U.S. Attorneys · federal prosecutor
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A lawyer appointed by the President to represent the federal government in civil and criminal cases in a federal judicial district under the direction of the Attorney General.
See Our Sources· 14 primary sources
Statutes
Federal Rules
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Transfer Approved by Both Districts
Unity Underhill faces indictment in the District of State A for misusing federal funds. After arrest in the District of State B she files a written statement seeking to plead guilty and waiving trial in State A. The United States attorneys for both districts review the request and each provides written approval. The clerk in State A then forwards the file to State B so the plea and sentence can proceed there.
Removal Power Over Executive Officers
Ulric Unger serves as a United States attorney in a federal district. The President decides to remove him from office before the end of his four-year term. Ulric challenges the removal in court claiming it violates separation-of-powers principles. The court upholds the removal because the President possesses constitutional authority to remove executive officers such as United States attorneys.
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board561 U.S. 477, 489, 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3150, 177 L. Ed. 2d 706 (2010)
In 2002 Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board as a five-member entity appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Board oversees audits of public companies and possesses authority to inspect registered accounting firms, initiate investigations, and issue sanctions. Beckstead and Watts, LLP, a Nevada accounting firm, registered with the Board. The Board inspected the firm, released a report critical of its auditing procedures, and began a formal investigation.
Free Enterprise Fund, a nonprofit organization of which the firm is a member, and Beckstead and Watts sued the Board and its members, the Commission, and the United States in federal district court. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that the Board's structure violated the Constitution. The district court determined it had jurisdiction and granted summary judgment to the defendants.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in full. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Ulysses Usher is arrested by federal agents on drug charges and taken to a station for questioning. An Assistant United States Attorney arrives and participates in the interview. The prosecutor ensures that Miranda warnings are given before any interrogation begins. Ulysses later moves to suppress his statements claiming the warnings were inadequate.
Miranda v. Arizona384 U.S. 436 (1966)
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape.
On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery.
On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours.
On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
Grand Jury Subpoena to Reporter
Umar Usmani a reporter receives a grand jury subpoena from a United States attorney investigating a financial fraud. The reporter refuses to identify a confidential source. The United States attorney moves to compel testimony arguing that no First Amendment privilege protects the source. The court orders the reporter to testify before the grand jury.
Branzburg v. Hayes408 U.S. 665 (1972)
In November 1969, Paul Branzburg, a staff reporter for the Courier-Journal newspaper in Louisville, Kentucky, published an article describing his observations of two individuals synthesizing hashish from marijuana in Jefferson County.
The article included a photograph and stated that Branzburg had promised not to reveal the identities of the two. He was subsequently subpoenaed by the Jefferson County grand jury and refused to identify the individuals he had observed. A state trial court ordered him to answer, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied his petition for relief.
In January 1971, Branzburg published a second article detailing drug use in Frankfort, Kentucky, based on interviews with several dozen users over two weeks. He was subpoenaed by the Franklin County grand jury to testify about violations of drug statutes. The Court of Appeals denied the requested writs and rejected his First Amendment claim. This Court granted certiorari.
In July 1970, Paul Pappas, a television newsman-photographer, was assigned to cover civil disorders in New Bedford, Massachusetts, involving the Black Panthers. He entered Panther headquarters under an agreement not to disclose what he saw or heard inside except for an anticipated police raid, which did not occur. Two months later, he was summoned before the Bristol County grand jury but refused to answer questions about his observations inside the headquarters. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that he must appear and testify.
In February 1970, Earl Caldwell, a New York Times reporter covering the Black Panther Party in San Francisco, received a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury investigating possible violations of federal law by the group, including threats against the President. The District Court denied the motion to quash but issued a protective order. Caldwell refused to appear and was held in contempt. The Court of Appeals reversed, recognizing a qualified privilege. This Court granted certiorari and consolidated the cases.
Broken Plea Agreement Promise
Umar Underwood pleads guilty to fraud after an Assistant United States Attorney promises a specific sentencing recommendation. At sentencing a different prosecutor from the same office recommends a harsher sentence. Umar moves to withdraw the plea citing the broken promise. The court finds the United States attorney office bound by the original agreement.
Santobello v. New York404 U.S. 257 (1971)
The State of New York indicted Santobello in 1969 on two felony counts of Promoting Gambling in the First Degree and Possession of Gambling Records in the First Degree. Santobello initially entered a plea of not guilty to both counts. After negotiations, the Assistant District Attorney agreed to permit a plea to the lesser-included offense of Possession of Gambling Records in the Second Degree and promised to make no recommendation as to sentence.
On June 16, 1969, Santobello withdrew the not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea to the lesser charge. The court accepted the plea after Santobello confirmed it was voluntary and the facts described by the prosecutor were true. A series of delays followed, owing primarily to the absence of a pre-sentence report, so that by September 23, 1969, Santobello had still not been sentenced.
By that date petitioner acquired new defense counsel. Petitioner's new counsel moved immediately to withdraw the guilty plea. In an accompanying affidavit, petitioner alleged that he did not know at the time of his plea that crucial evidence against him had been obtained as a result of an illegal search. In addition to his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, petitioner renewed the motion to suppress and filed a motion to inspect the grand jury minutes. These motions in turn caused further delay until November 26, 1969, when the court denied all three and set January 9, 1970, as the date for sentencing.
On January 9, 1970, Santobello appeared before a different judge because the original judge had retired. A new prosecutor replaced the one who negotiated the plea and recommended the maximum one-year sentence, citing Santobello’s criminal record and alleged links with organized crime. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the State had promised no sentence recommendation and sought an adjournment to prove the promise, though the State later conceded in subsequent proceedings that the promise had been made.
The sentencing judge imposed the maximum one-year sentence at the New York City Correctional Institution for men, stating that the prosecutor’s recommendation did not influence the decision. Santobello obtained a certificate of reasonable doubt and was admitted to bail pending appeal. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction, and leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied. Santobello then sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.
Judicial Appointment of Special Counsel
Usman Uddin is appointed by a judicial panel as special counsel with narrow authority to investigate one federal employee. The United States attorney for the district objects that the appointment violates the Appointments Clause. The court upholds the appointment because the limited scope makes the position an inferior office that Congress may vest in the judiciary.
5 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
When can a prosecution be transferred under Rule 20 for plea and sentence?
Transfer requires written approval from the United States attorneys in both the sending and receiving districts. The defendant must also provide a written statement of intent to plead guilty and consent to disposition in the transferee district. Without both approvals the court lacks authority to order the transfer even if the defendant consents.
What ethical duty does a United States attorney have before filing charges?
A United States attorney must ensure that charges are supported by probable cause. Filing charges without probable cause violates professional conduct rules and subjects the prosecutor to discipline. Knowledge of exculpatory evidence that negates probable cause requires the prosecutor to refrain from bringing the case.
Must a United States attorney disclose exculpatory information to the defense?
A United States attorney has an ethical duty to disclose timely all evidence known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused. This obligation applies whether or not the defense requests the information and whether or not the evidence is admissible. The duty arises once the prosecutor learns of the information.
How long does a United States officer sued in an official capacity have to answer a complaint?
The officer must serve an answer within 60 days after service on the United States attorney. This extended period applies when the officer is sued only in an official capacity. Service on the United States attorney triggers the 60-day clock.
Can a United States attorney share grand jury materials with a designated expert?
A United States attorney may disclose grand jury materials to a person expressly authorized by the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 3322 for financial institution investigations. The authorization must be in writing and limited to the specified investigation. Disclosure outside these statutory categories is prohibited.
general, id. , 230-237; of the
United States Attorneys
General, id. , 237-240; of the Presidents, id. , 240-270; of the Congress, id. , 270-301; of the state legislatures, id. , 301-315; of the churches, id. , 315-340; of the educators,…
General in charge of the Criminal Division. The Guidelines state that: "The Department of Justice recognizes that compulsory process in some circumstances may have…
,
federal
district
attorneys
(precursors to today’s
United States Attorneys
), and, to a lesser extent, the Secretary of the Treasury. See, e.g., Lessig, Readings By Our Unitary Executive, 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 175, 183–184 (1993); Teifer, The Constitutionality of…
prosecutor
threatened additional prosecutions. Although the Government denied them, the Court held that if the allegations were true, then the…
Constitutional LawIndividual rights · First Amendment freedomsUBEIntermediate