## Q22 key (Proffer Room)

1. The current agreement protects only against direct case-in-chief use. It permits unrestricted derivative investigation and broad rebuttal use, so Lena may supply the government the roadmap and later lose the ability to present inconsistent defenses. Missed: limited direct-use protection is mistaken for immunity.
2. No immunity, charge reduction, plea, or cooperation motion is promised. Going first does not create a legal entitlement to a deal. Missed: Lena gives irreversible information for an assumed benefit.
3. Agency sharing, unknown-crime, false-statement, and obstruction clauses expose separate state or federal paths. Counsel must map those subjects before disclosure. Missed: one proffer becomes evidence generation across agencies.
4. Omar's status is material because a cooperating Omar may already contradict Lena, while an uncharged or noncooperating Omar changes the government's need and the derivative value of her account. The intended topics and Lena's target or subject status should also be clarified in writing. Missed: counsel enters blind to the central witness alignment.
5. Request written derivative-use protection or a meaningful limit, rebuttal use confined to testimony or evidence directly inconsistent with specified statements, defined sharing limits, a topic list, confirmation of Lena's status, and nonprivileged confirmation whether Omar is cooperating. Missed: counsel negotiates only wording that does not alter conduct.
6. Do not contact Omar or use intermediaries. Continue preservation and no ongoing payments. Missed: an effort to learn status creates obstruction or witness-contact exposure.
7. Postpone tomorrow's proffer. Attend later only after the use scope and key status facts are secured and counsel has tested Lena's account against documents; decline if the government insists on the present derivative and rebuttal terms without a commensurate written benefit. Missed: Lena enters a one-way interview before the missing information can be obtained.