How does the 18 U.S.C. § 3521 statute define eligibility and obligations for federal witness protection?
Executive summary
18 U.S.C. § 3521 authorizes the Attorney General to relocate and otherwise protect witnesses or potential witnesses in federal or state proceedings when violence or related offenses are likely to be committed against them, and it conditions that protection on a written assessment, a memorandum of understanding, and specific obligations the protected person must accept — including cooperation, nondisclosure, compliance with laws, disclosure of legal obligations, and consent to federal supervision where applicable [1] [2] [3].
1. What the statute authorizes: relocation and protection when violence is likely
The statute gives the Attorney General discretionary authority to “provide for the relocation and other protection” of witnesses or potential witnesses in official proceedings involving organized crime or other serious offenses when the Attorney General determines that a crime of violence or certain obstruction or similar state offenses directed at the witness are likely to be committed [1] [3].
2. Who can be protected — witnesses, potential witnesses, and close associates
Protection under § 3521 can extend to a witness or a potential witness for the Federal Government or for a State government, and the Attorney General may also provide for relocation and protection of immediate family members or persons closely associated with the witness if they too face jeopardy due to the witness’s participation in the proceeding [1] [2] [3].
3. Procedural prerequisites: assessments, temporary protection, and written determinations
Before entry into protection, the statute contemplates a written assessment and determination regarding the necessity of protection and a memorandum of understanding setting forth conditions; however, it expressly permits temporary protection if imminent harm is determined or if delaying protection would jeopardize an investigation, allowing action before the written paperwork is complete [2] [3] [4].
4. Core obligations placed on protected persons in the memorandum of understanding
The memorandum of understanding required by subsection (d) enumerates responsibilities that a protected person must accept: to testify and provide information in appropriate proceedings, to refrain from committing crimes, to take steps to avoid detection of the protection provided, and to comply with legal obligations and civil judgments, among other duties specified in the statute [5] [6] [1].
5. Disclosure and supervision requirements: criminal history, custody, parole and probation
Section 3521 requires that prospective program participants supply broad information — including criminal history and sworn statements of outstanding legal obligations such as child custody and visitation — and to disclose probation or parole responsibilities; if a person is under state parole or probation they must consent to federal supervision under § 3522 during the period of supervision [1] [6] [4].
6. Financial and administrative details: payments, deductions, and program integrity
The statute authorizes certain payments and support but subjects them to deductions to satisfy family support obligations under state court orders, requires the Attorney General to establish records on criminal history for suitability review, and even exempts certain procurement or facilities actions as necessary to maintain security and program integrity [1] [6] [7].
7. Enforcement, revocation, and collateral consequences
Failure to comply with the memorandum of understanding — for example by violating the obligations to testify or to obey the law — can be grounds for revocation of probation or parole when the protected person is supervised, and the Justice Department’s witness-security guidance shows psychological evaluation and suitability screening are standard prerequisites before admission to the program [2] [8].
8. Sources, limits and alternative viewpoints
Primary legal texts (LII, GovInfo, House Judiciary codifications) make clear the statutory framework and the Attorney General’s discretion; Justice Department guidance fleshes out operational practices like psychological testing and record reviews but is implementation-focused rather than altering statutory criteria [1] [9] [8]. This reporting does not address classified or internal operational details of the U.S. Marshals Service that runs WITSEC, nor does it adjudicate disputes about discretionary admissions—areas left to agency practice and case-by-case determinations [10] [8].