The burden of proof for selective prosecution rests with the defendant, who must show the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss their indictment for "crack" cocaine and other federal charges, alleging they were selected for prosecution based on their race. The motion was granted by the District Court and affirmed by the Ninth Circuiten banc, which ruled the proof requirements do not compel the defendant to demonstrate the Government has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated.
The Supreme Court held that:
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, which governs discovery in criminal cases, exempts the work product of Government attorneys and agents made in connection with the case's investigation.
Under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the decision whether to prosecute may not be based on an arbitrary classification such as race or religion. Thus a defendant must produce credible evidence that similarly situated defendants of other races could have been prosecuted, but were not, in order to be entitled to discovery.
Text of United States v. Armstrong, 517U.S. 456 (1996) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
May 01, 2024
united, states, armstrong, 1996, case, heard, supreme, court, united, states, supreme, court, united, statesargued, february, 1996decided, 1996full, case, name, citations517, more, 1480, 687case, historyprior21, 1431, 1994, rehearing, banc, granted, 1994, rehe. United States v Armstrong 517 U S 456 1996 was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States United States v ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued February 26 1996Decided May 13 1996Full case nameUnited States v Armstrong et al Citations517 U S 456 more 116 S Ct 1480 134 L Ed 2d 687Case historyPrior21 F 3d 1431 9th Cir 1994 Rehearing en banc granted 31 F 3d 872 9th Cir 1994 On rehearing 48 F 3d 1508 9th Cir 1995 Cert granted 516 U S 942 1995 HoldingThe burden of proof for selective prosecution rests with the defendant who must show the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyDavid Souter Clarence ThomasRuth Bader Ginsburg Stephen BreyerCase opinionsMajorityRehnquist joined by O Connor Scalia Kennedy Souter Thomas Ginsburg Breyer in part ConcurrenceSouterConcurrenceGinsburgConcurrenceBreyer in part and in judgment DissentStevensLaws appliedU S Const amend VSyllabus editRespondents filed a motion to dismiss their indictment for crack cocaine and other federal charges alleging they were selected for prosecution based on their race The motion was granted by the District Court and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit en banc which ruled the proof requirements do not compel the defendant to demonstrate the Government has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated The Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 which governs discovery in criminal cases exempts the work product of Government attorneys and agents made in connection with the case s investigation Under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment the decision whether to prosecute may not be based on an arbitrary classification such as race or religion Thus a defendant must produce credible evidence that similarly situated defendants of other races could have been prosecuted but were not in order to be entitled to discovery The Supreme Court reversed and remanded 8 1 Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the court and was joined by Justices Sandra Day O Connor Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy David Souter Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Justice Stephen Breyer joined the majority opinion in part and also wrote a separate concurring opinion Justice John P Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion External links editText of United States v Armstrong 517 U S 456 1996 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title United States v Armstrong amp oldid 1190015552, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
