Oscar Wyatt and the Oil for Food Program have certainly been a topic in the news (see here). But Wyatt wants to move on and has agreed to a plea that will allow him to do so. According to the media he is agreeing to a guilty plea to one count – conspiracy to commit wire fraud – that will mean he faces a sentence of 18 to 24 months and an 11 million dollar forfeiture. (See Wall St Jrl here, USA Today -AP- here).  Interestingly this plea comes in the middle of his trial (see NYTimes here).

So why might someone plead guilty in the middle of trial?  Here are some possibilities, although this is not to imply that one or any of these apply to this situation –

• Cost –  The cost of going to trial can be enormous to someone accused of a crime. Ending the process certainly helps in reducing the cost.
• Risk –  Going to trial is taking a risk.  These days with the federal sentencing guidelines, the risk can be enormous.  Having a plea provides certainty and usually a much lesser sentence absent a not guilty finding.  Hearing the evidence and how that evidence is playing with a jury, may motivate one to avoid additional risk.
• Moving On – The toll taken psychologically, on someone accused of a crime, is enormous.  Ending the process with a certainty allows for "life after" – which in white collar cases can be important, especially after an extremely long investigation.
• New Discovery – Unfortunately, not all prosecutors turn over discovery well in advance of trial.  Receiving the discovery can provide a very good reason for wanting to plea, as one now sees the evidence the government has available.
• Jencks Material – By statute, the government does not have to turn over witnesses statements until after the witness testifies.  Many prosecutors realize the value of turning over this material well in advance of trial.   After all, if the accused sees the evidence against him or herself, there is more likely to be a quick plea. It certainly saves taxpayer money.

(esp)

The United State Attorney for Massachusetts reports in a press release that "Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Apothecon, Inc., have agreed to pay in excess of $515 million to resolve a broad array of federal and state civil allegations involving their drug marketing and pricing practices."  Within the press release one finds the following:

"BMS cooperated in aspects of the Government’s investigation. For example, BMS voluntarily disclosed to the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Massachusetts its practices with respect to the remuneration paid to physicians in 2000-2003, and voluntarily provided to the government numerous documents detailing these practices. With respect to Abilify, prior to the government’s investigation, BMS initiated steps to modify its physician “call lists” to reduce the potential for off-label marketing. In addition, BMS made available to the government Frederick Lacey, a retired federal district court judge who had been serving as BMS’ compliance monitor pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement in the District of New Jersey. Judge Lacey and other senior BMS officials presented extensive evidence of the compliance practices under which BMS currently operates. The government took BMS’s self-disclosure, its cooperation, and its current practices into account in agreeing to this civil resolution."

The Agreement does contain a waiver and cooperation provision, but it does not ask for a waiver of attorney-client privileged material. The agreement states:

33. BMS agrees to cooperate fully and truthfully with the United States’ investigation of the Covered Conduct, as that pertains to individuals and entities not released in this Agreement.  Upon reasonable notice, BMS shall make reasonable efforts to facilitate access to, and encourage cooperation of it directors, officers, and employees for interviews and testimony, consistent with the rights and privileges of such individuals and shall furnish to the United States, upon reasonable request, all non-privileged documents and records in its possession, custody, or control related to the Covered Conduct.

By the way, this agreement also does not include a chair to law school.

(esp)

Interesting piece by Susan Reisinger over at Corporate Counsel titled, "Doctor’s Orders: Bristol-Myers is the First Company to Sign a Deferred Prosecution Agreement and then Violate it."  Co-blogger Peter Henning comments that "prosecuting Bristol-Myers for securities fraud would have been ‘the nuclear option, because the company already admitted what it did and would have no defense at trial.’"

(esp) 

The Miami Herald reports that former Broward County, Florida, Sheriff Ken Jenne, will plead guilty today to charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax evasion.

(esp)

A press release of the DOJ reports that "[t]the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today accepted the Department of Justice’s plea agreements with British Airways Plc and Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. that had been announced on August 1, 2007."  The release confirms what was reported here that the "companies pleaded guilty and were sentenced to pay separate $300 million criminal fines for their roles in conspiracies to fix the prices of passenger and cargo flights."

(esp)

The LATimes reports on a court decision that finds that the University of Phoenix may still be subject to a lawsuit despite a prior "$9.8-million settlement it made with the federal government."

(esp)

An interesting post can be found on the blog "Grits for Breakfast" which states that "a Texas oilman pled guilty in Manhattan last week to giving kickbacks to secure contracts with Saddam Hussein’s government as part of the pre-war oil for food program in Iraq."  It refers to a Reuter’s article here.

(esp)