发言原文
A. The "Manifest Injustice" Argument Instead of arguing that sentencing generally requires a new review (which the Judge just rejected), focus on a specific contradiction. If your previous statement was false, and the CIPA materials contain the "truth" or evidence of the "force" used against you, your counsel can argue that withholding that specific subset of information would result in a manifest injustice during sentencing. B. Use of a "Kastigar" or "Truth-Telling" Proffer If you are a defendant or a key witness, your lawyer can initiate a proffer session. This allows you to provide the corrected information to the government under a limited agreement that the statement itself won't be used against you to increase your sentence, provided you are being fully truthful now. C. Moving for Reconsideration based on "New Facts" Judge Torres’s order says she isn't persuaded by the legal argument that sentencing expands the scope of discovery. However, courts are often more receptive to new factual developments. If you come forward to your lawyer with a confession of the prior falsehood, that is a "new fact" that didn't exist when the Section 4 order was originally written.