United States v. Lauersen
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2000 WL 1693538 (2000)
Facts
The government was investigating the medical practice of Lauersen (defendant). Binion (defendant) worked for a doctor who assisted Lauersen in his practice. Binion and her lawyer met with the government pursuant to a proffer agreement. The agreement provided that if Binion were to be prosecuted, the government would not use her statements during the proffer session against her in its case-in-chief, but the government would be permitted to use her statements to impeach her or to rebut any evidence or arguments offered by her or on her behalf at any stage of the prosecution. The agreement was not provided to Binion’s lawyer prior to the meeting. Before the proffer session, Binion’s lawyer told Binion to be truthful and that what she said during the session would not be used against her except to impeach her if she ever provided contradictory testimony. Binion’s lawyer did not understand, and did not explain to Binion, that the proffer agreement permitted the use of Binion’s statements to rebut opening statements, cross-examination, and summation. During the proffer session, Binion admitted to participating in wrongdoing. Binion was indicted. Prior to trial, Binion made a motion in limine to preclude the government from introducing at trial the statements she made under the proffer agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pauley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
