The filing of information under 21 U.S.C§ 851 on previous convictions is an increase in sentence, not a criminal offense, and should be prosecuted if deemed appropriate in the exercise of a sound assessment by the prosecutor and in the circumstances. Factors to be considered include the seriousness of the current offence, the nature and age of the conviction(s) prior to the accused`s cooperation and responsibility for his or her criminal conduct, and any other mitigating and aggravating factors. When an accused commits one or more “violent or drug trafficking crimes” with a firearm, you normally charge at least 18 US.C. § 924(c) and the underlying predicate. 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 multiple 924(c) offences. Comment. Sufficient evidence to support a conviction is required under Rule 29(a) of the Federal Penal Code to avoid a judgment of acquittal. In addition, both for reasons of fairness in principle and in the interest of the effective administration of justice, no proceedings should be brought against any person unless counsel for the government is of the opinion that the admissible evidence is sufficient to obtain and maintain a guilty verdict by an impartial Trier. In this regard, it should be noted that, when deciding on prosecutions, counsel for the government does not need, at this stage, to have on hand all the evidence on which he intends to rely at the main hearing if he believes, in good faith and good faith, that such evidence is available and admissible at the time of the hearing. For example, it would be appropriate to initiate or recommend prosecution, even if an important witness is outside the country, as long as there is a good faith basis to believe that the witness`s presence at trial can reasonably be expected. If the law and the facts create a strong and punishable case, the likelihood of an acquittal due to the unpopularity of one aspect of the prosecution or the overwhelming popularity of the accused or his or her case is not a pre-prosecution factor.
For example, in a civil law case or in a case involving a very popular political figure, it might be clear that the evidence of guilt – objectively considered by an impartial factual – would be sufficient to obtain and uphold a conviction, but the prosecutor might reasonably doubt that the jury would convict because of the circumstances. In such a case, despite his negative assessment of the likelihood of a guilty verdict (based on factors that are not relevant to an objective view of the law and the facts), the prosecutor may conclude that it is necessary and appropriate to initiate or recommend prosecution and allow the criminal proceedings to proceed in accordance with the principles set out here. . . .