Memo to Trump: What Not to Expect From Robert Mueller
A letter of exoneration? White-collar defense lawyers say it would be outside the typical course of things for a prosecutor to put anything in writing that would absolve someone of any wrongdoing.
December 19, 2017 at 07:11 PM
5 minute read
President Donald Trump. Credit: Shealah Craighead / White House
The federal investigation into Russia's interference in the U.S. presidential election and what the Trump campaign team knew, or didn't know, is sure to stretch for weeks—if not many more months. That could be unsettling for anyone who might be in the orbit of Robert Mueller and his special counsel's office prosecutors.
President Donald Trump has told associates, according to a CNN report, that he expects some sort of all-clear from Mueller, something he can show off that says he has done nothing wrong. CNN characterized this document as a “letter of exoneration.”
But Trump may not want to get his hopes up. Several white-collar defense lawyers in Washington said it would be outside the typical course of things for a prosecutor to put anything in writing that would absolve someone of any wrongdoing.
“That's just not normal procedure whatsoever,” said Mayer Brown partner Kelly Kramer, co-leader of the firm's white-collar defense and compliance practice. He added: “I've never heard of an exoneration letter. The only way I can see to get to 'exoneration' here is through a report to Congress, which of course is not typically how the DOJ does business.”
Federal prosecutors have discretion to write a “declination” memo that tells a target he or she is no longer under investigation, or that the investigation has closed. But these memos are rare, and there's nothing that compels a prosecutor to write one in the first place, several white-collar defense lawyers said.
In some cases, an individual or company will learn through an informal call that an investigation has been closed. Sometimes, that notification will never come.
“Silence is golden,” said one lawyer.
Declination memos, when they do get sent, come in a matter-of-fact style. They give the status of an investigation without going so far as to assert a onetime target is innocent. Several lawyers said they've never seen a declination memo longer than a single page.
”Exoneration is not a concept that exists in the panoply of weapons and communications from the Department of Justice,” said Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Joel M. Cohen, a former federal prosecutor who is now co-leader of his firm's white-collar and investigations group. “You can only be exonerated after you've been charged. A prosecution team, they don't exonerate people.”
Declination letters from a prosecutor, Cohen said, let the target know “we decline to prosecute you. They typically also have a caveat that this has no legal consequence, and that they reserve the right to reverse their stance if new evidence changes their assessment.”
A lawyer for Trump declined to comment Tuesday.
Prosecutors, of course, don't always bring criminal cases against targets of an investigation. There are any number of reasons for this. Witnesses might not fully cooperate. The evidence just might not be there. “What has been shown is no collusion. No collusion. There has been absolutely no collusion,” Trump told reporters this month.
Sometimes, a federal grand jury—perhaps not sold on the day's ham sandwich—decides not to indict. In that case, any would-be defendant could wave around a copy of the “no bill.”
The U.S. Justice Department publicly posts some of its declination memos concerning companies that were under investigation for possible foreign-bribery violations.
These memos are not highly detailed recitations of the facts—and, anyway, they do in some instances reveal criminal activity. The public availability of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act declination memos gives companies some thinking about effective compliance programs and how much goodwill cooperation might engender.
Mueller might have reasons for a detailed or less detailed memo, if he sends one at all—to anyone. But that memo almost certainly would not “exonerate” the target or otherwise declare innocence.
Even juries don't do that. You're either guilty or not guilty. They don't say you are innocent.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHolland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute read'There Is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
3 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250