AUSA - taking questions

AUSA anon

AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:47 pm

Entered through the Honors program, been doing this for under 10 years, have worked a big office and a small office, but not in “prestigious” districts. Happy to answer what questions I can, though some I may not be able to answer.

somelawperson
Posts: 2976
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:14 am

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by somelawperson » Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:07 pm

Did you enter through main justice or through the AUSA office?

What is a day in the life (or week in the life) for you?

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:24 pm

Through a USAO.

Day/week in the life: this will probably be longer and something unexpected popped up so I will come back and answer in just a bit!

somelawperson
Posts: 2976
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:14 am

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by somelawperson » Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:31 pm

Thank you for correcting my very stupid acronym failure

And thanks for taking questions

omegaweapon
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:44 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by omegaweapon » Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:02 pm

In your districts have ties to the area (through clerkships, work history, ect) been important, or do you take people from everywhere?
How did they look on federal non-doj lawyers vs biglaw refugees vs ADAs?
How much does the office culture and work change when the US Attorney changes?
How long do people tend to stay in the office?
When they leave do they normally lateral to other government, private practice, or another AUSA?

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:41 pm

Ha, no worries on the acronym, that happens a lot. Also when I first started I had to learn to say Assistant US Attorney instead of US Attorney (as they are very different!).

Day/week in the life: it varies based on what stages my cases are at. Official hours are 8:30-5, but unless I'm in trial, I'm usually there 9-6 or 7 (though later if necessary. I've filed responses at like 11:50pm before). I prefer to stay at the office and work till I'm done, but some people, especially those who have kids, leave the office earlier get back online to work in the evening. I generally don't work on weekends, except again if I'm in trial/serious trial prep mode or have some other unusually large project with a deadline looming. I've probably averaged 1 trial a year, but they seem to come in spurts. During trial all bets are off - I'm usually up till midnight or 1 am, which I know isn't even that bad compared to biglaw, but personally if I get less than 4-5 hours of sleep I won't be able to perform at trial the next day, and I always get in early on trial days.

On any given day, I'm doing some or all of the following (in rough order of how they appear in a case):
- reviewing reports for a new case & figuring out what to charge
- talking to agents about what additional evidence we need, both stuff I know already exists and stuff I want us to find (email/phone/in person)
- drafting indictments (or complaints, but they're less common)
- writing a prosecution memo, in which for a given case I summarize the facts, describe the evidence, outline the charges I intend to pursue and why. identify any problems/defenses, and estimate the defendant's exposure. This goes to my supervisor to approve before I can indict. This is probably 2-3x every 2 months.
- preparing for grand jury (involves some writing and some sitting down with a witness to prep)
- putting the proposed indictment before the grand jury (putting a witness on the stand)
- figuring out what I have to disclose to the defense and when (we are pretty open-disclosure but some stuff doesn't go out, or doesn't go out right away), reviewing it to make sure it's been properly redacted
- going to initial appearance/arraignment and making recommendations/arguments about detention
- talking to defense counsel - about detention, disclosure, cooperation, possible case resolution
- drafting a plea agreement
- writing a memo in support of the plea and sending to my supervisor for approval
- going to a change of plea (my role in these is limited - usually at most I have to describe the offense conduct to which the defendant is pleading)
- reviewing and responding to probation's proposed sentencing calculations
- writing/responding to the defense's sentencing memo
- making a recommendation at sentencing

The above happen in pretty much all cases (if someone goes to trial and wins you can knock out the sentencing part of course). Things that happen less regularly but are also big parts of the job:
- trial (of course)
- suppression motions - interviewing witnesses (usually agents), responding in writing to the motion, prepping witnesses for the stand, and then holding the evidentiary hearing/arguing the motion
- violations of supervised release - involves going to court for the initial appearance and arguing about detention, sometimes preparing for/doing an evidentiary hearing on the violation
- interviewing defendants who want to cooperate
- talking to state prosecutors and local police
- trainings (both in and out of the office)
- reviewing search warrants and going with the agent to swear those before a magistrate judge
- acting as the duty attorney, which means covering for other attorneys, serving as a resource for agents, and responding to public complaints/concerns.
- division meetings

It is kind of hard to ID a typical day because sometimes I have a lot of cases at the early part of their cycle, which is usually pretty research/writing heavy, while other times I have a lot of cases hanging out there that I need to get resolved and there's a lot more discussion with defense counsel. In my current office I probably go to court 1-2x/wk, maybe less; in my previous office it was more like 4-5x a week. A lot of it is writing/research heavy, both in what my office requires and in motion/trial practice. But there is also a lot of consultation with colleagues and agents, and when working with co-counsel there's a ton of interaction and discussion. So there's actually quite a bit of variety in that there's a lot of research/writing/thinky stuff, but there's also a fair amount of social ability needed.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:31 pm

omegaweapon wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:02 pm
In your districts have ties to the area (through clerkships, work history, ect) been important, or do you take people from everywhere?
How did they look on federal non-doj lawyers vs biglaw refugees vs ADAs?
How much does the office culture and work change when the US Attorney changes?
How long do people tend to stay in the office?
When they leave do they normally lateral to other government, private practice, or another AUSA?
Before I answer: this stuff varies a lot by office, so I will try to make clear the context of my answer.

In my districts, ties have been/are very important. In my current office, most of the AUSAs are absolutely local or have some kind of local tie. In my previous office, it was a bit more of an even split between locals, and outsiders willing to go anywhere to get AUSA experience (who tended to move on after a few years). But even there, the office wanted to see a reason why you really wanted to be *there* and liked ties *a lot.* Admittedly, I had no ties at all, but was able to sell them on my interest in being there based on specific work experiences and the fact that I'd already moved around a lot for jobs. And I should say that ties are mostly personal/familial, though if you clerked locally and could use that to sell your interest that would probably work.

Both my districts hire both biglaw refugees and ADAs, although in my current district it's mostly been the former in recent years. My old district really liked local ADAs (also former JAGs), but would hire biglaw refugees, who were often less local. I haven't seen a lot of non-DOJ federal lawyers - my old office did just hire a couple, but I think it was a response to the hiring freeze and hiring current feds (even if non-DOJ) was easier.

I've only lived through one change in USA, but have talked with a lot of people about it. There is and isn't a lot of change. The people you work with mostly don't change (at least in my districts, there was no "cleaning house" where the new USA got rid of people/installed their own people, though I can't say it never happens), so to that extent culture doesn't change. And a lot of the nature of the work is determined by factors unrelated to the USA (so, for instance, if you're in the Western District of Texas, it's not like the nature/volume of border crime changes just because you get a new USA). But of course a new USA can change policies and priorities. Anecdotally, it matters a lot whether your USA values the position for its own sake, or whether they see it purely as a stepping stone to other, political ambitions. I think though that being part of DOJ also makes a difference in that the AG sets a lot of the policies, with the intent at creating some kind of uniformity across the country. Again, of course a new USA has a lot of say over how to implement the AG's priorities. I guess I would say that so far, IME, there are inevitably changes but that they're generally not so severe that you have people leaving in droves with a new administration - there's more continuity. But that may also be very different in other districts (in part based on exit options).

Where I am, people stay for a looong time. In my current office the majority have been there for 15+ years. That was less the case in my former office, because the non-locals tended to move after some chunk of time, but you still had a core group of local lifers in it for the long haul. In my current office, as far as I can tell, a ton of people end their careers here. I think there are some members of the defense bar who used to work in our office, but a long time ago. In my previous office, people primarily left for Main Justice, other USAOs, to be IJs/ALJs, or to set up their own criminal defense practice. I know of a couple of people who went from USAO to biglaw, but it was much less common in these districts than it might be elsewhere b/c we don't get much of the kind of sophisticated white-collar work that's attractive to biglaw (prosecuting child porn cases or gun cases doesn't have much to offer for traditional biglaw). The legal market outside the USAO is also small in both these districts, so while you can make a lot of connections that can land you on your feet, there aren't that many private sector jobs that look better than the USAO (imho).

User avatar
UVA2B
Moderator
Posts: 4210
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:26 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by UVA2B » Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:37 pm

I don’t have additional questions, but you’re a valuable asset here, so thank you for answering questions!

User avatar
Toni
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:13 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by Toni » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:56 am

What do you like the most and the least about being a AUSA? Generalizing, what can a BL refugee envision for the first few years? Thanks.

Also, I assume you have an adequate budget to do your work (I just read a thread where a local prosecutor did not have access to Lexis/Westlaw).

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:59 am

Like most: that I feel like I'm doing meaningful work; working with smart, interesting, experienced people (also prosecutors are some of the funniest people I've ever met); working up cases and figuring out what works legally and writing that up; writing substantive motions; putting all the pieces of a case together when it goes to trial.

Like least: arguing over plea agreements. I kind of hate the phone but have to make a lot of phone calls. Working with less good agents. There's still a ton that I feel like I don't know and having to track down people to get questions answered can be a pain in the ass (people in both my offices are super helpful but since everyone's busy pinning the right person down when you need a question answered isn't always easy).

What a BL refugee can envision: I'm not sure how to answer this, not having been a biglaw refugee. Pretty much everyone does the same job. Former state prosecutors are actually more likely to come in and get shunted into specialized/more complex cases from the start given their experience; I would say that the BL refugees are pretty much the least prepared for the job (well, after me and my fellow honors people who have no practice experience at all). I know some BL people get some criminal exposure doing pro bono, but I'd say the shift from civil to criminal is bigger than the shift from state prosecution to federal prosecution (though there are important differences there, too). But I don't think anyone's treated any differently from anyone else.

And yes, I've never run into a budget issue. My world isn't super luxurious, but I always get everything I need. (There is a fairly horrific amount of bureaucracy, but to be honest, that's what my legal assistant and other office staff are for.) Actually as I think about it my former BL colleagues find it a big step down in terms of resources/support and find some of the tolerance for not-good staff horrifying (but this is again luck of the draw - personally my legal assistants and most paralegals and IT people have been great. That varies though). It's easier to fire people in BL.

ss108
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:17 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by ss108 » Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:59 pm

What is the next career move for you? Or are you too established with spouse job/family in the current area you live in, and see no point in trying to change jobs in what you mentioned was a smaller legal market?

Thanks for doing this!

curious LC

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by curious LC » Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:52 pm

Thanks for doing this.

I'm currently a law clerk on a CoA and often read plea agreements between the gov't and defendants. These agreements are typically super restrictive, and so I wonder how much wiggle room/negotiation there is for criminal defense attorneys. To what extent are you willing/able to negotiate:

- guidelines calculations?
- what should be included as "relevant conduct"?
- rights to appeal? Specifically, how much would you play ball with an attorney who wanted to retain the client's right to appeal for things other than IAC claims?


Other questions:
- could you speak on the plea deal negotiation process generally? (and maybe this discussion will answer all of the questions aforementioned)
- do you write all of your own briefs?
- why, at times, do different AUSAs handle the trial and/or sentencing vs. appeal? what goes into that calculus? for continuity's sake, it seems like it would be easier for one attorney (or the same group of attorneys) to handle both
-What do you think about the Guidelines in general?

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:02 pm

ss108 wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:59 pm
What is the next career move for you? Or are you too established with spouse job/family in the current area you live in, and see no point in trying to change jobs in what you mentioned was a smaller legal market?

Thanks for doing this!
I will probably stay here, honestly. First, like I said, my office is full of lifers and there’s no expectation that I ever leave. Second, personal reasons to do with spouse/family and the nature of the market here. Third, I’m super tired of living my life to set up the next job and striving for brass rings and want to just do a job for a change.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:55 pm

curious LC wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:52 pm
Thanks for doing this.

I'm currently a law clerk on a CoA and often read plea agreements between the gov't and defendants. These agreements are typically super restrictive, and so I wonder how much wiggle room/negotiation there is for criminal defense attorneys. To what extent are you willing/able to negotiate:

- guidelines calculations?
- what should be included as "relevant conduct"?
- rights to appeal? Specifically, how much would you play ball with an attorney who wanted to retain the client's right to appeal for things other than IAC claims?


Other questions:
- could you speak on the plea deal negotiation process generally? (and maybe this discussion will answer all of the questions aforementioned)
- do you write all of your own briefs?
- why, at times, do different AUSAs handle the trial and/or sentencing vs. appeal? what goes into that calculus? for continuity's sake, it seems like it would be easier for one attorney (or the same group of attorneys) to handle both
-What do you think about the Guidelines in general?
Not sure how much of this I will be able to answer, but some thoughts: to get sort of technical, there’s only so much I can do about the guidelines and relevant conduct. I can’t just decide a guideline doesn’t apply or particular conduct isn’t relevant, because I don’t calculate that; probation does. While in some cases it’s hotly contested whether a GL applies/conduct is relevant, a lot of times it’s not. For ex, if a defendant had X amount of a drug I can’t just say the guideline is anything other than what the guideline is for that weight of drug. If the defendant ran over a local cop fleeing the scene I can’t just say that that isn’t relevant conduct.

What I *can* do (and this is probably what you meant), if I think the GL range is too high for the circumstances, is come to an agreement with the def atty as to a specific number, so the GL range could be 30-37 months but the def and I will enter into an agreement that the appropriate sentence is 24 months. That has to be a number that the court will accept, though, because the court can/will reject it. So in the case of the 30-37 months GL, say the offense was violent or had some kind of egregious conduct, and we try to enter a plea to probation, the court is likely to say “fuck no” and we’re back to where we started.

I have a reasonable amount of discretion in that kind of thing, but my pleas have to be approved by my supervisor and there is a concern that pleas across the office are consistent, taking into account the circumstances of a given case.

Right to appeal doesn’t actually come up much, pretty much only when there’s been a suppression motion and the def lost. Otherwise a def who wants to be able to appeal is usually a def who wants to go to trial (they can’t plead open and reserve any right to appeal their guilt). If the issue is going to be sentencing rather than guilt, defs usually just plead open so they can appeal, so what’s in the plea agreement is moot. IME with suppression motions we’ll let the defendant plead conditional on reserving the right to appeal that particular ruling, although there might be strategic reasons why we wouldn’t based on a specific legal issue. But IME that’s rare (that we wouldn’t).

Plea negotiations are really case by case and hard to generalize about. I don’t know if you have any more specific questions that I can answer better.

I have written all of my briefs. Why different people write the brief: most offices do practice vertical prosecution (the same person handles the case from intake through appeal), but all have an appellate section, even if it’s small (the appellate section in my current office is one dude). Some AUSAs hate writing briefs or are just genuinely too busy when the brief is due and so will hand the case off to the appellate gurus (or they’ve left the office by the time the appeal is due). Some appeals are so rote and routine that the appellate gurus can churn out a response easy-peasy in way less time than the trial person will (a lot of 2255s fall into this category). And then on the flip side, some appeals are just too important and involve issues with lots of implications for more than just one office, and the appellate gurus will do those because they have the big picture of the law and office interests in their head in a way the non-appellate folks don’t. (Similar to how when a case makes it all the way to SCOTUS it will get handled by mucketymucks in main justice and the USAO appellate person is lucky to get to watch the oral argument.)

What I think of the guidelines...I guess I’ll say that they’re ridiculously complicated but that I take some satisfaction in puzzling them out (it’s like logic games!). Beyond that I don’t think I should comment, although again, if you have anything more specific I might be able to address it.

AUSA Applicant

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA Applicant » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:15 am

I know this is unanswerable, but you can probably tell I'm just a ball of nerves during this process. I've had interviews with 8 offices the past few months, still pending with 6 at various stages (from initial round, to meeting USA). In your two offices, which don't sound like they are those that I am pending with, what are my odds in terms of yield rate? I am starting to get the 0 for 8 fear.

Secondly, any idea how long a normal pre-starting background check would take? I am assuming I will need to start working at a firm for a few months and then just take off once my clearance would hopefully go through.

Also want to second everything said here. Such a valuable resource. Thank you.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:39 am

I am afraid I don’t have much input on odds/yield rate - I’ve only been involved in my own hirings and I really don’t know what the odds were (I know who’s ended up getting hired so what my offices prefer, but not how many people they were competing with). I think getting that many interviews is a good sign, and getting brought in to meet the USA is a very good sign (my sense is you’re not getting hired somewhere you haven’t met the USA, and I don’t think they bring in tons of people to meet the USA). But beyond that I’m afraid I can’t be very helpful, I’m sorry!

The background check does take 2-3 months, and is hard to predict. Having foreign connections makes it harder. The hard thing is you can’t set a start date until it’s done, and I know people who’ve been asked if they can start, say, the following week once it finally comes through (though obviously they’re local). I’ve seen some people talk about how there’s a preliminary check and you can start after that and then the complete the rest, but either way, I think 2-3 months is a safe guess (I think the 2-3 months is the preliminary check).

AUSA Applicant

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA Applicant » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:49 am

Much appreciated. Out of curiosity, is it the SF86, 85, or 85p that is required for standard AUSA positions?

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:00 pm

SF86.

AUSA Applicant

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA Applicant » Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:48 pm

Any tea leaves to read when references are called?

User avatar
Toni
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:13 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by Toni » Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:59 pm

AUSA anon wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:47 pm
.....have worked a big office and a small office, but not in “prestigious” districts.
When you say big office, I take that to mean Atlanta size...small office, possibly Savannah size....prestigious, NYC, DC.

Other than your small office cases won't be highlighted on Nightline, what are the IRL differences? i.e., Money, support staff size, longevity, moving cost? And whatever other differences (good and bad) you can think of. Many Thanks.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:16 pm

AUSA Applicant wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:48 pm
Any tea leaves to read when references are called?
Nothing definitive, I’m sorry - my references were called both times, once before meeting the USA, once after; I don’t think it was a done deal either way because they seemed to care quite a lot about what my references had to say - but it’s still a good sign! Fingers crossed for you.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:03 pm

Toni wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:59 pm
AUSA anon wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:47 pm
.....have worked a big office and a small office, but not in “prestigious” districts.
When you say big office, I take that to mean Atlanta size...small office, possibly Savannah size....prestigious, NYC, DC.

Other than your small office cases won't be highlighted on Nightline, what are the IRL differences? i.e., Money, support staff size, longevity, moving cost? And whatever other differences (good and bad) you can think of. Many Thanks.
So I can’t speak too directly to how the prestigious offices work, but there are quite a lot of differences between big and small offices, and I think some of the big office stuff will apply to the prestigious offices.

Big offices have more bureaucracy. In my first office I spoke directly to the criminal chief a handful of times; I had a supervisor below them. Where I am now, the criminal chief is my direct supervisor. So you’re more directly involved, in a way, in what’s going on.

Big offices tend to have a lot more specialization (national security, public corruption, white collar crime, drugs etc will each have separate groups with people who do only those kinds of cases). Because things are more specialized, there can be more competition to do more “interesting,” complex cases. In my current office, I do a huge range of things, largely just by telling my chief I’d like to try X.

My experience has also been that big offices tend to have slightly more defined charging and pleading policies to which everyone is supposed to adhere, just for practicality’s sake - it’s a way to handle volume, as well as to prevent disparities (there’s nothing more frustrating than a defense attorney asking for a certain outcome and saying “but your colleague offered that!”) (and to be fair to the def attys it’s probably frustrating to them too). Smaller offices can provide a little more independence/flexibility. This is limited to some extent by DOJ’s overarching guidelines, but not eliminated.

I don’t think there are a lot of differences wrt money and support staff and so on between prestigious offices and the ordinary ones, because a lot of this is so centralized. There can be variances in pay based on USA choices, I’m told, but my salary so far has been basically identical in each office. (You make more in SDNY, of course, but due to locality pay more than that the base salary is different.) I think amount of support staff is pretty much based on size. Not entirely, in the kind of caseload can make a difference. Offices in Indian country might have access to funds to address those cases. You can get special funding based on doing certain kinds of drug cases, or gun cases.

Actually, I will say my smaller office has some resources with regard to paralegals and such that my bigger office didn’t. So there can be some differences. But I’m pretty sure SDNY is at least as well provisioned as my current office.

There is no difference wrt to moving cost - it’s not covered.

Mostly it’s the nature of the cases. SDNY does a lot of sophisticated white collar crime because of where it is. Every district gets some, but in my offices it’s a lot less and usually less sophisticated, because neither are in a financial center. My sense is that EDNY has historically done a lot of organized crime. Indian country offices do a lot of violent crime, sex abuse, DUIs. Border districts do shitloads of immigration crime. EDMI does a lot of guns. Because of what is considered important and sexy, SDNY ends up with a lot of prestige. But even at SDNY there are people doing a lot of bread and butter guns and drug cases. I’m sure the culture there is very different from where I’ve worked, but I can’t tell you how because I haven’t worked there. I suspect the hours are worse, but that’s a total guess.

(I do meet people from other districts when I go to trainings, but there are generally few to no SDNY folks. They’re probably big enough to do their own in-house trainings and may not want people to spend the time away, but that’s also just a guess.)

Longevity - so I think the big prestigious offices do see people moving around more. My current office is a ton of lifers, in part because exit options are different than coming out of SDNY. There’s an image of the revolving door from USAOs to biglaw partnerships. I think that’s actually pretty uncommon. It may still be the case for SDNY because of the nature of their cases - biglaw firms in NYC defend those cases. They don’t defend your average gun and drug and CP cases. Someone prosecuting Indian country crime in the western district of Oklahoma isn’t getting hired by biglaw. (And frankly if you’re in western Oklahoma there isn’t going to be any biglaw and the USAO is going to be a really good gig.)

ss108
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:17 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by ss108 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:58 am

Is it common for people to "lateral"? Like, if one is really committed to working as an AUSA, would a reasonable strategy be to take a position at whichever USAO one can get, spend 2-3 years there, and then try to move to a bigger or more prestigious office?

AUSA anonyes

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anonyes » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:54 am

Yes, in my experience this kind of “lateral” move is fairly common. I don’t know quite *how* big a jump you can make - if you don’t have the kind of credentials that, say, SDNY wants to see, I’m not sure work in another USAO will make up for that unless it’s really amazing, pertinent experience. But especially if you do have the kind of credentials one of the fancy districts would look for, getting experience in another district first can be helpful. (That said, no guarantees - it still depends on who runs the hiring and what that person’s looking for, which can change. It may well also take longer than 2-3 years.)

dc clerk

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by dc clerk » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:10 am

This is incredibly helpful. I never considered criminal law during law school but have really enjoyed the work this year as a district court clerk. I have some questions that may be district-specific, but would really appreciate your insight.

How much discretion does an individual AUSA have in charging? I have seen cases this year that were incredibly weak and it was hard for me to understand why the charges weren't dropped long before trial. The Judge ended up granting a motion for acquittal on most of the charges at one trial. I know you obviously don't know why this happened in my specific case, but would an AUSA have the discretion to drop charges in cases that you didn't think warranted the charge? Or are those sorts of decisions made by the USA/criminal chief?

I am incredibly interested in criminal law and maybe want to pursue it, but I hate the idea of prosecuting a case I didn't believe in. I would appreciate any thoughts you have. I'm not sure if I'm being too naive or maybe criminal law just isn't for me.

Would appreciate any other advice you care to offer on purusing a career as an AUSA. From my view working for a judge, it seems like an amazing job.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests