Know the tactics.Know the record.Know your rights.
About 98% of federal cases that end in a sentence end in a guilty plea. This site puts the government's own numbers, court opinions, dismissed prosecutions and internal DOJ findings in front of you, and lets the record speak.
The federal system resolves almost everything by plea.
Plea bargaining is not a side feature of federal criminal justice. It is the dominant operating model.
98%
of federal cases that ended in a sentence in fiscal year 2025 were resolved by a guilty plea. It was 97% in fiscal year 2024.
That does not prove coercion in any individual case. It shows that plea bargaining is the dominant operating model.
21%
of federal cases in fiscal year 2025 carried a statutory mandatory minimum penalty.
Mandatory minimums can sharply reduce a judge's sentencing discretion, which intensifies bargaining leverage.
21 vs. 110
months: the median prison term after a guilty plea compared with after a jury-trial conviction, in an independent analysis of Sentencing Commission data for fiscal years 2020 to 2025.
The analyst cautions that selection effects account for part of the difference: trial cases can be more serious and materially different.
The leverage is built into the structure.
How plea leverage worksCharge stacking
Federal prosecutors can charge multiple statutes, multiple counts, conspiracy counts, substantive counts, sentencing enhancements, and offenses carrying mandatory minimum penalties when the facts and law support them. Each additional count can increase exposure and bargaining pressure.
Mandatory minimums
These statutes can sharply reduce a judge's sentencing discretion. In fiscal year 2025, 21% of federal cases carried one, according to the Sentencing Commission.
Control of the charges
Prosecutors decide whether to file certain charges, dismiss counts as part of a plea agreement, or move for substantial-assistance relief. That discretion can create a large difference between the risk of trial and the negotiated outcome.
Aggressive prosecution is not automatically misconduct. Breaking the rules is.
The line is crossed when the government violates constitutional or ethical duties: suppressing material favorable evidence, knowingly using false testimony, or conduct so prejudicial that a fair trial cannot be had.
Brady
Brady v. Maryland, 1963
Withholding favorable evidence
The prosecution violates due process when it suppresses evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment. The rule does not depend on whether the suppression was done in good faith or bad faith.
Napue
Napue v. Illinois, 1959
False or misleading testimony
Due process is violated when the prosecution knowingly allows false testimony to stand uncorrected.
Giglio
Giglio v. United States
Undisclosed deals with witnesses
Giglio extended the principle to impeachment evidence, including undisclosed promises or inducements that affect a government witness's credibility.
Cases they lost.
Documented decisions in which courts, or the Justice Department itself, addressed federal misconduct and its consequences. Each links to the opinion or official record.
- First Circuit, 2009Limone v. United StatesConvictions vacated. The federal government was held liable for more than $100 million.
- D.D.C. and DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, 2009 to 2012United States v. Theodore F. StevensThe Justice Department asked the court to set aside the verdict and dismiss the indictment with prejudice.
- Ninth Circuit, 2008, with a related fee opinion in 2011United States v. ChapmanIndictment dismissed with prejudice after a mistrial. The dismissal was affirmed.
- Ninth Circuit, 2020United States v. BundyProsecution dismissed with prejudice for late disclosure of favorable evidence. The dismissal was affirmed.
- M.D. Florida, 1997Ware v. United StatesAn FTCA claim over wrongful conviction and malicious continuation of prosecution was allowed to proceed past a notice objection.
Close to home: the First Circuit.
In Limone, four men were convicted of a 1965 Massachusetts murder largely on the word of an FBI informant, while FBI files that undercut his account stayed suppressed. The First Circuit upheld liability for the government's conduct and damage awards above $100 million.
That court's decisions bind federal courts in Maine.
“Egregious.”
How the First Circuit described the government misconduct in Limone v. United States.
Public officials, sourced to the public record.
These profiles state what the record shows and stop there. Allegations are labeled as allegations, and nothing is presented as a finding unless a court or agency made it.
Andrew K. Lizotte
Maine District Court Judge. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney and civil chief, District of Maine.
Read the recordDarcie N. McElwee
Justice of the Maine Superior Court. Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine.
Read the record
Check it yourself.
Every outside link on this site is in one source library: court opinions, DOJ documents, Sentencing Commission statistics, and legislative and judicial records.
Open the source library