indicated, they should be read in the broader context of the basic responsibilities of federal attorneys: making certain that the general purposes of the criminal law-assurance of warranted punishment, deterrence of further criminal conduct, protection of the public from dangerous offenders, and rehabilitation of offenders-are adequately met, while making certain also that the rights of individuals are scrupulously protected. 2. In carrying out criminal law enforcement responsibilities, each Department of Justice attorney should be guided by the principles set forth herein, and each United States Attorney and each Assistant Attorney General should ensure that such principles are communicated to the attorneys who exercise prosecutorial responsibility within his office or under his direction or supervision. Comment It is expected that each federal prosecutor will be guided by these principles in carrying out his criminal law enforcement responsibilities unless a modification of, or departure from, these principles has been authorized pursuant to paragraph 4 below. However, it is not intended that reference to these principles will require a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case. Rather, these principles are set forth solely for the purpose of assisting attorneys for the government in determining how best to exercise their authority in the performance of their duties. 3. Each United States Attorney and responsible Assistant Attorney General should establish internal office procedures to ensure: (a) that prosecutorial decisions are made at an appropriate level of responsibility, and are made consistent with these principles; and (b) that serious, unjustified departures from the principles set forth herein are followed by such remedial action, including the imposition of disciplinary sanctions when warranted, as are deemed appropriate. Comment Each United States Attorney and each Assistant Attorney General responsible for the enforcement of federal criminal law should supplement the guidance provided by the principles set forth herein by establishing appropriate internal procedures for his office. One purpose of such procedures should be to ensure consistency in the decisions within each office by regularizing the decision making process so that decisions are made at the appropriate level of responsibility. A second purpose, equally important, is to provide appropriate remedies for serious, unjustified departures from sound prosecutorial principles. The United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General may also wish to establish internal procedures for appropriate review and documentation of decisions. 4. A United States Attorney may modify or depart from the principles set forth herein as necessary in the interests of fair and effective law enforcement within the district. Any significant modification or departure contemplated as a matter of policy or regular practice must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. Comment Although these materials are designed to promote consistency in the application of federal criminal laws, they are not intended to produce rigid uniformity among federal prosecutors in all areas of the country at the expense of the fair administration of justice. Different offices face different conditions and have different requirements. In recognition of these realities, and in order to maintain the flexibility necessary to respond fairly and effectively to local conditions, each United States Attorney is specifically authorized to modify or depart from the principles set forth herein, as necessary in the interests of fair and effective law enforcement within the district. In situations in which a modification or departure is contemplated as a matter of policy or regular practice, the appropriate Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General must approve the action before it is adopted. 5. The principles set forth herein, and internal office procedures adopted pursuant hereto, are intended solely for the guidance of attorneys for the government. They are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party to litigation with the United States. Comment This statement of principles has been developed purely as a matter of internal Departmental policy and is being provided to federal prosecutors solely for their own guidance in performing their duties. Neither this statement of principles nor any internal procedures adopted by individual offices pursuant hereto creates any rights or benefits. By setting forth this fact explicitly, paragraph 5 is intended to foreclose efforts to litigate the validity of prosecutorial actions alleged to be at variance with these principles or not in compliance with internal office procedures that may be adopted pursuant hereto. In the event that an attempt is made to litigate any aspect of these principles, or to litigate any internal office procedures adopted pursuant to these materials, or to litigate the applicability of such principles or procedures to a particular case, the United States Attorney concerned should oppose the attempt and should notify the Department immediately. PART B. INITIATING AND DECLINING PROSECUTION 1. If the attorney for the government has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a federal offense within his jurisdiction, he should consider whether to: (a) request or conduct further investigation; (b) commence or recommend prosecution; (c) decline prosecution and refer the matter for prosecutorial consideration in another jurisdiction; (d) decline prosecution and initiate or recommend pretrial diversion or other non-criminal disposition; or (e) decline prosecution without taking other action. Comment Paragraph 1 sets forth the courses of action available to the attorney for the government once he has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a federal offense within his jurisdiction. The probable cause standard is the same standard as that required for the issuance of an arrest warrant or a summons upon a complaint (see Rule 4(a), F.R.Cr.P.), for a magistrate's decision to hold a defendant to answer in the district court (see Rule 5.1(a), F.R.Cr.P.), and is the minimal requirement for indictment by a grand jury (see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686 (1972)). This is, of course a threshold consideration only. Merely because this requirement can be met in a given case does not automatically warrant prosecution; further investigation may be warranted, and the prosecutor should still take into account all relevant considerations, including those described in the following provisions, in deciding upon his course of action. On the other hand, failure to meet the minimal requirement of probable cause is an absolute bar to initiating a federal prosecution, and in some circumstances may preclude reference to other prosecuting authorities or recourse to non-criminal sanctions as well. 2. The attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he believes that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless, in his judgment, prosecution should be declined because: (a) no substantial federal interest would be served by prosecution: (b) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (c) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution. Comment Paragraph 2 expresses the principle that, ordinarily, the attorney for the government should initiate or recommend federal prosecution if he believes that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. Evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction is required under Rule 29(a), F.R.Cr.P., to avoid a judgment of acquittal. Moreover both as a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact. In this connection, it should be noted that, when deciding whether to prosecute, the government attorney need not have in hand all the evidence upon which he intends to rely at trial; it is sufficient that he have a reasonable belief that such evidence will be available and admissible at the time of trial. Thus, for example, it would be proper to commence a prosecution though a key witness is out of the country, so long as the witness's presence at trial could be expected with reasonable certainty. The potential that-despite the law and the facts that create a sound, prosecutable case-the fact-finder is likely to acquit the defendant because of the unpopularity of some factor involved in the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his or her cause, is not a factor prohibiting prosecution. For example, in a civil rights case or a case involving an extremely popular political figure, it might be clear that the evidence of guilt-viewed objectively by an unbiased fact-finder-would be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, yet the prosecutor might reasonably doubt whether the jury would convict. In such a |