VINDICTIVE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
WHAT IS VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION?
Vindictive prosecution is when a prosecutor violates a defendant’s due process rights and if they are using their decision to prosecute the defendant for purposes of retaliation.
The following instances constitute vindictiveness:
- Where the prosecutor charges the defendant with a more serious offense after the defendant appeals the conviction of the lesser offense
- Where the prosecutor charges the defendant with an offense although the defendant has not violated the law.
The following represent instances that DO NOT constitute vindictiveness:
- Adding a charge after the defendant withdraws from a plea bargain agreement
- Indicting the defendant on a more serious charge after the defendant rejected a plea agreement
- Indicting the defendant on a new charge after a mistrial occurred
- Indicting the defendant on a more serious charge after discovering that there was an error in the original information or indictment.
PRESUMPTION OF VINDICTIVENESS
If the presumption of vindictiveness arises, the presumption may be rebutted by showing that a legitimate and objective reason supported the change in the indictment or the basis for the indictment itself. However, if no presumption of vindictiveness arises, the defendant may show that the prosecutor was actually vindictive in her prosecution. The defendant may present direct evidence showing that the prosecutor was vindictive.
WHAT IS SELECTIVE PROSECUTION?
Selective prosecution is when the prosecutor bases her decision of whether to prosecute on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. If they do this then the prosecutor may be guilty of selective prosecution.
A claim of selective prosecution must be raised in a timely manner before the trial has commenced otherwise the claim may be regarded as untimely and waived. In order for the defendant to prevail on a selective prosecution claim they must overcome the strong presumption that prosecutors have properly performed their duties. A selective prosecution claim is typically analyzed in accordance with the equal protection standards.
The defendant must produce evidence that shows:
- The prosecutor engaged in selective prosecution
- The selective prosecution had a discriminatory effect upon the defendant
- The selective prosecution was pursued with discriminatory intent.
If you need help with this subject contact the legal team of Underwood & Associates with the link below https://www.yourcriminaldefenseattorney.com/blog/2020/october/vindictive-and-selective-prosecution/
Read MORE Below – click the links
We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive and encompassing
CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence
We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test
We also have the True Threats Test – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition
We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment 1st
We also have the Obscenity and Pornography ; 1st Amendment
We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment
We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test
We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test
We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment 1st
We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment lots of SCOTUS Rulings
We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ lots of SCOTUS Rulings
We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts lots of SCOTUS Rulings
9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant in Individual Capacity —Elements and Burden of Proof – click here to learn requirements
California Civil Code Section 52.1 Interference by threat, intimidation or coercion with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights
Recoverable Damages Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 LEARN MORE
New Supreme Court Ruling makes it easier to sue police
42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Rights
Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit
Recoverable Damages Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
Section 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct?
Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Rights
New Supreme Court Ruling makes it easier to sue police
Prosecutorial Misconduct, What is it?
Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution
Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct
Vindictive Prosecution – Georgetown University
VINDICTIVE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT LAW
Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination and mental health
Motion to reconsider – Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Section 1008
Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation – Options to Appealing
Right to Truth – Victims’ Bill of Rights – Prop 8 1982
118.1 PC – Police Officers Filing False Reports