Entries by Daniel C. Craig

Supreme Court Limits Enforcement of Appellate Waivers in Cases Involving Miscarriages of Justice

On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Hunter v. United States that appellate waivers in plea agreements are not enforceable when doing so would result in a “miscarriage of justice.” The Court rejected arguments that knowing and voluntary appeal waivers must always be enforced, recognizing instead a narrow exception for sentences tainted by obvious and egregious errors that threaten public confidence in the judiciary.

The decision resolves a longstanding circuit split and underscores the judiciary’s independent role in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system. Although appellate waivers remain generally enforceable, Hunter creates a limited pathway for defendants to challenge certain unlawful sentences notwithstanding a waiver provision in a plea agreement.

The case also produced a notable concurrence from Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, questioning the modern plea-bargaining system and the leverage prosecutors wield in securing guilty pleas and appellate waivers. Read more in this blog post.

Cracking Open the Grand Jury Black Box: Recent Cases Show Prosecutorial Misconduct Can Lead to Dismissal of Charges

Recent federal cases in Wyoming and Illinois involving judicial findings of prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury have resulted in dismissed indictments. In Wyoming, three federal judges dismissed nine felony indictments after concluding that the interim U.S. Attorney made inflammatory and prejudicial remarks to grand jurors that compromised the integrity of the proceedings. In Illinois, the prosecution of the so-called “Broadview Six” collapsed after a federal judge authorized disclosure and review of grand jury materials amid allegations of serious misconduct during the charging process, leading the government to dismiss the remaining charges with prejudice.

These outcomes are remarkable because courts rarely agree to scrutinize what occurs before the grand jury. Grand jury proceedings are cloaked in secrecy, and courts generally presume that prosecutors properly present evidence and accurately instruct grand jurors on the law. As a result, efforts to challenge indictments based on misconduct in the charging process face a steep uphill battle. The Wyoming and Illinois cases nevertheless demonstrate that, where defense counsel can identify objective facts raising legitimate concerns about the integrity of the grand jury process, courts may be willing to look behind the curtain, authorize disclosure or review of grand jury materials, and, in extraordinary circumstances, dismiss indictments altogether. This blog post examines those cases, the legal framework governing grand jury secrecy, and the practical lessons they offer for defense counsel seeking to investigate and litigate potential grand jury misconduct.

U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago Announces Reforms For Grand Jury Proceedings

On May 27, 2026, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois announced that it had implemented internal reforms concerning the Office’s practices and disclosures related to grand juries. The announcement followed the recent discovery of extensive prosecutorial misconduct before a grand jury resulting in dismissal with prejudice of the high-profile “Broadview Six” prosecutions. While the details of the reforms remain unclear, the announcement reflects a recognition that change was needed to address past practices and may provide an opportunity for criminal defendants to seek grand jury disclosures and relief if misconduct is uncovered.

Three Potential Benefits, One Powerful Incentive: NDIL’s New Individual Self-Disclosure Program

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois (NDIL) announced a new Individual Self-Disclosure Program offering qualifying individuals three potential forms of relief in exchange for voluntary self-disclosure and cooperation: letter immunity, a deferred or non-prosecution agreement, or criminal prosecution with substantial sentencing relief. The Program’s express three-tier structure distinguishes it from many other federal self-disclosure programs, which generally focus on the possibility of a non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreement. To qualify, individuals must provide a complete and truthful proffer, cooperate fully with law enforcement, testify if required, and disgorge any criminal proceeds, among other requirements. This post summarizes the Program’s key features and highlights how it compares to similar self-disclosure initiatives adopted in other jurisdictions.

“Don’t Wait”: DOJ Criminal Division Chief Signals Faster Disclosure Expectations and Uptick in Corporate Enforcement

On May 7, 2026, Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva used his first major speech to the compliance community since DOJ’s March 2026 rollout of its department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) to deliver a clear message: corporate enforcement activity is expected to increase, companies should self-disclose misconduct early—even before completing internal investigations—and robust compliance programs remain central to DOJ’s expectations.