News and resources discussing efforts to change the manner in which DPAs and NPAs operate, along with several actual DPAs and NPAs, are provided below.
News and Commentary
“DPAs and Plea Agreements: The Tradeoffs ,” Corporate Counsel, January 5, 2015.
The Justice Department is now in your boardroom, in a big way , Fortune, December 22, 2014
Assistant Attorney General Caldwell’s Unconvincing Defense of DPAs / NPAs , FCPA Professor, December, 8, 2014
“DPAs” Have Arrived in England: The Proof of the Pudding Is in the Eating , Raymond L. Sweigart, Pillsbury, February 11, 2014
The Shadow Lengthens: The Continuing Threat of Regulation by Prosecution , James Copland & Isaac Gorodetski, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, February 2014
Regulators Finding New Ways to Use DPAs, NPAs , Corporate Counsel, July 12, 2013
Do NPAs and DPAs Deter? , FCPA Professor, March 12, 2013
Assistant Attorney General Breuer’s Unconvincing Defense of DPAs / NPAs, FCPA Professor, September 17, 2012
FCPA Enforcement: Why Corporations Support DPAs & NPAs , Corporate Compliance Insights, April 12, 2012
NPAs, DPAs, and the FCPA , FCPA Professor, February 9, 2010
Proposal Seeks More Oversight of Justice Department's Pre-Trial Diversion Agreements , Shana-Tara Regon, NACDL, Washington Legal Foundation, September 25, 2009
Continue reading below
Featured Products
Pattern Cross-Examination for Digital Forensic Experts
This guide provides ready-to-use cross-examination questions, categorized by artifact type and case theme—from cell phone towers to deleted texts to smart devices and cloud forensics. Whether you’re handling a case involving child exploitation, stalking, or online fraud, this book delivers practical patterns designed to highlight sloppy forensics, bias, tool limitations, and assumptions of intent or identity. Defense attorneys don’t need a computer science degree—they need strategy, control, and the right questions to challenge the illusion of digital certainty in court.
Using Chat GPT in Criminal Cases - Writing Better Prompts
Want a motion written in plain language but grounded in Tennessee case law? Need a summary of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence with primary and secondary citations? This is where you learn how to get that—on demand, and with far less editing. This training is designed specifically for attorneys—busy professionals who need fast, accurate, and case-relevant AI support. Whether you’re drafting motions, brainstorming legal strategy, summarizing complex case law, or preparing cross-examinations, the quality of your AI output comes down to one thing: how you ask for it.
Alcohol, Blackouts and Consent in Sex Cases
This comprehensive training program provides defense attorneys with a rigorous, science-backed approach to dismantling prosecutorial narratives, exposing unreliable testimony, and ensuring that juries are properly educated on the complexities of memory, intoxication, and consent. You'll explores critical mistakes and misconceptions encountered in these cases, including errors in memory reconstruction after an event, incorrect inferences, cognitive schemas, suggestibility, contamination and misinformation, mistakes of fact and more.
Overcoming the Presumption of Guilt and Defining Reasonable Doubt
Reasonable Doubt, what is it?
In order to win criminal cases, the defense practitioner must object to a reasonable doubt standard that lowers the burden of guilt. This program will discuss proven methods to argue and define reasonable doubt persuasively to a jury. You’ll learn how define reasonable doubt using metaphors and hypothetical scenarios that force juries to dispute the evidence, conflicts in the evidence, or even lack of evidence in your case.
The DIY of DNA: Exoneration Through DNA Evidence
This presentation might be the first time you’re truly able to truly grasp the fundamentals of DNA evidence. This critical presentation blends real-world storytelling with clear, practical instruction—making DNA evidence finally feel accessible, even to non-scientists—while inspiring attorneys to dig deeper, ask smarter questions, and approach forensic science with newfound confidence. You’ll learn how to identify and interpret electropherograms, understand autosomal vs. Y-STR testing, and recognize the limits of DNA evidence—particularly when it involves partial or mixed samples.
Alert: Differences in DPAs and NPAs Narrowing?, Compliance Week, July 9, 2009
Resources
Brandon L. Garrett and Jon Ashley, Corporate Prosecution Registry , University of Virginia School of Law
The Shadow Lengthens: The Continuing Threat of Regulation by Prosecution , James Copland & Isaac Gorodetski, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, February 2014
2013 Year-End Update on Corporate NPAs and DPAs, Gibson Dunn, January 7, 2014
2013 Mid-Year Update on Corporate Deferred Prosecution and Non-Prosecution Agreements , Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, July 24, 2013
2012 Mid-Year Update on Corporate Deferred Prosecution and Non-Prosecution Agreements , Gibson Dunn, July 10, 2012
The Shadow Regulatory State: The Rise of Deferred Prosecution Agreements, James Copland, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, May 2012
Memo from Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler, Additional Guidance on the Use of Monitors in DPAs and NPAs with Corporations (May 25, 2010) (Grindler Memo)
Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, Corporate Crime: DOJ Has Taken Steps to Better Track Its Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreements, but Should Evaluate Effectiveness (January 2010)
Memo from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford, Selection and Use of Monitors in DPAs and NPAs with Corporations (March 7, 2008) (Morford Memo)