Is there any american law which ensures a lesser penalty to a pawn than to the mastermind of a crime?

Question

I'm writing a story and I would like a more realistic approach on the plot. The point is: there is a lawyer doing bad things (because a mix of love and money) and he must (following orders) write all of those things on a report.

However, since he is a lawyer and he is not the mastermind behind those things, I'm thinking if there is something that he could write on this report, in a law perspective, to minimize his penalty if he gets caught. For example: "according to article X, since I was just following orders, I appeal to my Y rights" or anything like this.

It don't has to be a elaborate defense (but I will be glad if it will) since it is just a side note on a book full of proves of his crimes. If it matters, the story take place in Oregon, USA.

Answer 1

There's nothing he can really write that any court would have to listen to - after all, from the court's perspective, he could have been lying when he wrote it down. And following orders is generally not a defense (although if he was under actual duress, like they were threatening to kill him if he didn't do it, that could be a defense.) But being a pawn rather than a mastermind can impact the sentence.

If the crime is a federal one, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines adjust the offense level according to the role in the crime:

§3B1.1. Aggravating Role

Based on the defendant's role in the offense, increase the offense level as follows:

(a) If the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 4 levels.

(b) If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 3 levels.

(c) If the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels.

§3B1.2. Mitigating Role

Based on the defendant's role in the offense, decrease the offense level as follows:

(a) If the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 4 levels.

(b) If the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 2 levels.

In cases falling between (a) and (b), decrease by 3 levels.

The lawyer would probably not qualify as a "minimal participant" if he's writing reports detailing the activity, as this shows he's aware of the extent of the illegality. He would, however, probably qualify as a "minor participant".

If the crime was a state crime, then according to Oregon rules:

(1) Subject to the provisions of sections (2) and (3) of this rule, the following nonexclusive list of mitigating and aggravating factors may be considered in determining whether substantial and compelling reasons for a departure exist:

(a) Mitigating factors:

(D) The offense was principally accomplished by another and the defendant exhibited extreme caution or concern for the victim.

(E) The offender played a minor or passive role in the crime.

Answer 2

The realistic choice for the lawyer would be to frame his actions as bonafide legal advice to his client. A lawyer generally is not liable for criminal actions of his clients.

As a lawyer, he'll know that "just following orders" does not work very well in a defense. Sure, any lawyer will throw the argument in when defending a client, because it also does little harm, but a lawyer wouldn't count on it themselves.

Additionally, the lawyer would also describe the written report as privileged attorney-client communications, so the content is not easy to use by the prosecution.