Discriminatory/Vindictive Prosecution
Category > Discriminatory/Vindictive Prosecution
The trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss based on vindictive prosecution where the prosecution added new murder counts after defendant won a reversal of capital charges on appeal.Defendant was convicted of two capital murders and sentenced to death. The convictions were reversed on appeal. Before the retrial, the prosecution investigated other murder cases where defendant had been a suspect, and added four new counts. The trial court erred in failing to dismiss three of the new charges for vindictive prosecution. The presumption of vindictiveness was established where the new charges were an apparent response to a successful appeal. The prosecution failed to rebut the presumption in three cases because they did not show how new information or a change in circumstances influenced their charging decision. They did dispel the presumption in one case where a witness had been unavailable in 1997.id: 24950
Defendant was subjected to vindictive prosecution where the prosecutor refiled a previously dismissed felony count after defendant successfully challenged a misdemeanor conviction on appeal. Defendant was charged with felony statutory rape and misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The jury failed to reach a verdict and the court declared a mistrial. On retrial, the jury failed to reach a verdict on the felony but convicted of the misdemeanor. The misdemeanor conviction was then reversed for instructional error on appeal. Defendant was then subjected to vindictive prosecution when the prosecutor reinstituted the previously dismissed felony charge. The prosecution failed to dispel the presumption of vindictiveness where it refiled the felony charge after the defendant won the appeal following his second trial. id: 21951
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding defendant produced "some evidence" and made a "credible showing" in support of his discriminatory prosecution claim which entitled him to discovery.Defendant sought discovery in support of his claim that the District Attorney's pursuit of a grand theft count was an unconstitutionally discriminatory prosecution. The prosecution argued the court abused its discretion in granting the discovery motion. The trial court could reasonably have concluded, based on the evidence presented by defendant and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, that defendant had provided "some evidence" and made a "credible showing" that 1) similarly situated persons could have been, but were not prosecuted and 2) the District Attorney's office had targeted defendant because of his involvement in the provision of medical marijuana.id: 15836
Murgia motion was cognizable on appeal following a guilty plea since it raised a constitutional issue which went to the legality of the proceedings.Following a guilty plea, defendant filed a discovery motion seeking information with respect to whether he was prosecuted only because he is an African-American. (Murgia v. Municipal Court (1975) 15 Cal.3rd 286.) The prosecution argued the motion is not cognizable on appeal following a guilty plea. However, the motion did not seek material that could result in the exclusion of evidence that would be relevant to guilt. Rather, the motion sought evidence of an equal protection violation which would mandate dismissal regardless of guilt. The motion was cognizable on appeal since it raised a constitutional ground which challenged the legality of the proceedings.id: 17148
Updated 3/4/2024The not guilty verdict on the murder charge did not preclude, on collateral estoppel grounds, a second trial for assault on a child causing death. Defendant was charged with murder and assault on a child causing death under Penal Code section 273ab. The jury acquitted him of murder but hung on the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter, and on the assault charge. The prosecutor then amended the information to charge child endangerment with injury (section 273a) and assault on a child causing death. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the not guilty verdict on the murder count did not preclude on collateral estoppel grounds a second trial on assault of a child causing death as the verdict did not necessarily resolve an ultimate fact in defendant’s favor as to the latter. Moreover, the amendment to the information adding child endangerment did not give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness. Finally, section 654 did not preclude a subsequent trial on the amended information under Kellett v. Superior Court. id: 26867
Filing state human trafficking charges after a federal guilty plea did not constitute vindictive prosecution.Defendants were the subject of a joint state/federal human trafficking investigation. They pled guilty in federal court to misuse of visas after having been charged with harboring illegal aliens. The state thereafter charged them with human trafficking under Penal Code section 236.1. The state charges did not constitute a vindictive prosecution absent evidence that the DA was motivated by a desire to punish defendant for exercising their rights. And the doctrine of vindictive prosecution does not apply where independent decisions are made by separate state and federal prosecutors. Finally, the state was not required to give “full faith and credit” to the federal judgment by dismissing the state charges.id: 25331
Increased sentence after retrial was not vindictive prosecution and did not violate due process or double jeopardy where it was based on enhancements on which the jury hung at the first trial.Defendant’s attempted murder conviction was reversed for instructional error. At the retrial, the prosecution pursued firearm enhancements on which there had been a hung jury and a mistrial. They were never dismissed. At the second trial, the prosecution pursued the enhancements which were found true, and resulted in a greater sentence at the retrial. The retrial on the mistried enhancements was not vindictive prosecution as there was no increase in changes for the second trial. Moreover, the increased aggregate sentence did not violate due process or double jeopardy under the state constitution as the rule prohibiting an increased sentence at a retrial does not apply where it was due to retrial of a count on which the jury hung. id: 22225
There was no vindictive prosecution where the felony evasion charges followed the acquittal on the murder case. Defendant argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the felony evading charge based on vindictive prosecution as he was charged with the offense only after testifying in his defense at the earlier murder trial. However, there was no vindictive prosecution as the new charges were not brought in retaliation for the exercise of constitutional rights, but in response to the acquittal on the murder charge. An earlier acquittal is a legitimate prosecutorial consideration in charging. id: 21768
By failing to object, defendant forfeited the claim that the court erred by failing to advise him about the consequences of his admission of a prior arson.The trial court erred in failing to inform defendant of the direct consequences of his admission of a prior arson offense. He also claimed the trial court failed to consider additional mitigating factors before imposing sentence. However, defendant forfeited these claims due to his failure to object at or before sentencing. The court refused to review the issues based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel where the record did not show why counsel failed to object, and counsel may have had valid reasons for not objecting.id: 20920
There was no vindictive prosecution where the decision to seek the death penalty was based on information other than defendant's efforts to dismiss the special circumstance allegation.Defendant argued vindictive prosecution claiming the
prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty must have been motivated by a desire to punish him for challenging the validity of the special circumstance allegation through his 995 motion.
However, the record shows the prosecution may instead have reassessed its decision about the death penalty after receiving information from additional sources, including the conditional
examination of a key witness.id: 18993
The record did not show the amended complaint alleging special circumstances was a vindictive response to defendant's attempt to plead guilty to murder.Defendant argued the amendment to the complaint, charging special circumstances, was a vindictive response to his attempt to plead guilty. There is no doubt the timing of the amendment was occasioned by defendant's attempt to plead guilty to the murder charge. However, there is nothing to show the amendment was a vindictive response, especially where the prosecutor had been discussing the possibility. Finally, since defendant was not yet in jeopardy, there was no presumption of vindictiveness, and defendant thereafter failed to show any such evidence.id: 16901
There was no invidious discrimination in singling out a police officer for felony prosecution in a pyramid scheme.Defendant was charged with operating an endless chain scheme in violation of Penal Code section 327. He argued he was the subject of an invidious discrimination because the prosecutor's decision to charge him was motivated solely by his status as a Los Angeles Police Officer. However, defendant failed to discharge his public obligations when he joined and recruited others to join the pyramid scheme. There was nothing improper in the prosecutor's decision to single out a police officer for felony prosecution.id: 15837
No prosecutional vindictiveness was established where the additional charges were the result of a reevaluation of the evidence.Defendant entered a guilty plea which was not the result of a plea bargain. She moved to withdraw the plea at the sentencing hearing. In the meantime, the case had been reevaluated by a different prosecutor from those who had filed the original charges. When she discovered that the evidence supported felony charges, she then moved to amend the charges. While the evidence gave rise to an appearance of vindictiveness, it was insufficient to warrant the application of a presumption that the more serious charges were filed in retaliation for defendant's exercise of her constitutional rights.id: 12047
Presumption of prosecutional vindictiveness did not arise where prosecutor refiled previously dismissed charges after the court failed to impose a prison sentence following probation revocation based on the new offense.Defendant was on probation following a conviction for a drug offense. He was then charged with a new drug offense but the charge was dismissed and defendant was notified the new offense would be used as a basis for revoking his probation. Probation was revoked and reinstated along with a jail term. The court did not impose a prison sentence. The following day the prosecution refiled the felony criminal charge. The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the charges under Penal Code section 1385 stating that the refiling of charges was an act of vindictive prosecution. The presumption of vindictiveness simply did not apply where the prosecution had a right to refile and did not file more serious charges. Moreover, there was no evidence of vindictive prosecution as the refiling was a response to criminal activity rather than an assertion of a constitutional or statutory right.id: 12048
The trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss for discriminatory prosecution since a comparison between defendant's conduct and that of law enforcement officers was not relevant.Defendant was charged with attempted murder and mayhem. He moved to dismiss the charges on the basis of discriminatory prosecution. He presented evidence of several instances of abusive incidents involving law enforcement officers. However, officers and ordinary citizens are not similarly situated and any comparison would not assist a court in determining whether defendant was the victim of intentional and purposeful discrimination.id: 12049
There was no showing of prosecutorial vindictiveness where the prosecutor charged the special circumstance twelve days after defendant's arrest.Three days after the shooting and before defendant's arrest, a complaint was filed. The complaint charged first degree murder but no special circumstances. He argued that the amended complaint charging the lying-in-wait special circumstance was a vindictive retaliation for his assertion of the right to counsel, his temporary refusal to waive extradition and his eventual refusal to talk to police. However, the special circumstance was charged within days of the arrest and thereafter consistently and effectively prosecuted. There was no hint, much less an affirmative showing, of vindictive prosecution.id: 12050
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245