“What that shows . . .” is a new column that will run from time to time to illustrate universal truths that arise from particular cases.
Years ago, in a complicated criminal case, a defendant was arrested for identity theft and computer hacking. At the time, federal agents were not familiar with computer related crimes and were in great need of help. The defendant of course was very knowledgeable on the subject and agreed to cooperate. The government regularly supplied the defendant with the latest in computer technology and he performed admirably, teaching agents systems and techniques they were previously unaware of.
Time passed and the case was scheduled to be dismissed entirely, when the defendant was again arrested and accused of computer hacking. Following his arrest, the defendant was incarcerated. But after just a few weeks, he was released. Why? It was not because the agents were nice guys, and it certainly was not because of some sort of mix up with the B.O.P. The defendant was released because the government needed his cooperation and again it was willing to negotiate for it.
Stories about defendants who are arrested repeatedly but manage to get out of jail quickly are in fact true. It does happen, but only because the government needs something that the defendant has.
What that shows is no matter what a defendant does, no matter how outrageous the conduct, if a defendant knows something that the government is interested in learning, it will bargain for it. But if a defendant has nothing to offer, the government will self righteously declare that, under the circumstances, their policy prohibits the defendant from cooperating, whatever the circumstances may be. The government can afford to say that when a defendant has nothing to offer. But if the defendant can provide the government with valuable information, it will quickly discard the “policy” and cut a deal. Why? Because the government does what is in its best interest. Never forget that.
The two questions a defendant has to ask are, do I have something that the government wants? And how much is the government willing to “pay” for it? It is as unemotional as that.