Document: 434 U.S. 357 98 S.Ct. 663 54 L.Ed.2d 604 Don BORDENKIRCHER, Superintendent, Kentucky State Penitentiary, Petitioner,v.Paul Lewis HAYES. No. 76-1334. Argued Nov. 9, 1977. Decided Jan. 18, 1978. Rehearing Denied March 6, See 435 918, 1477. Syllabus The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated when a state prosecutor carries out threat made during plea negotiations to have accused reindicted on more serious charges which he plainly subject prosecution if does plead guilty offense with was originally charged. Pp. 360-365. (a) "[T]he and often concomitant bargain are important components this country's criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned." Blackledge v. Allison, 431 63, 71, 97 1621, 1627, 52 136. 361-362. (b) Though punish person because has done what law allows violates due process, see North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 738, 89 2072, 2082, 23 656, there no such element punishment in "give-and-take" bargaining as long free accept or reject prosecutor's offer. 362-364. (c) This Court accepted constitutionally legitimate simple reality that interest at table persuade defendant forgo his right guilty, pursuing course here did exceed constitutional bounds. 364-365. 547 F.2d 42, 6 Cir., reversed. Robert L. Chenoweth, Frankfort, Ky., for petitioner. J. Vincent Aprile II, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 question case whether reindict 2 * respondent, Paul Hayes, indicted by Fayette County, grand jury charge uttering forged instrument amount $88.30, an then punishable term 10 years prison. Ky.Rev.Stat. § 434.130 (1973) (repealed 1975). After arraignment, retained counsel, Commonwealth's Attorney met presence Clerk discuss possible agreement. During these conferences offered recommend sentence five prison Hayes would indictment. He also said "save[d] court inconvenience necessity trial," return seek indictment under Habitual Criminal Act,1 431.190 1975), mandatory life imprisonment reason two prior felony convictions.2 chose obtain charging him Act. It disputed recidivist fully justified evidence, pros cutor possession evidence time original indictment, Hayes' refusal led habitual statute. 3 A found principal and, separate proceeding, further had twice before been convicted felonies. As required offender statute, sentenced penitentiary. Appeals rejected objections enhanced sentence, holding unpublished possibility parole permissible light previous felonies convicted,3 decision indict use available leverage plea-bargaining process. 4 On petition federal writ habeas corpus, United States District Eastern agreed violation procedure, denied writ.4 Sixth Circuit reversed Court's judgment. Cowan, 42. While recognizing "that now plays role our system," id., 43, appellate thought conduct principles Perry, 417 21, 94 2098, 40 628, "protect[ed] defendants from vindictive exercise discretion." F.2d, 44. Accordingly, ordered be discharged "except confinement lawful imposed solely crime instrument." Id., 45. We granted certiorari consider importance administration justice. 953, 2672, 53 269. II 5 may helpful clarify outset nature issue case. actually until after ended, intention do o clearly expressed negotiations. thus informed true terms offer guilty. situation, therefore, where without notice brought additional relating only ended defendant's insistence pleading guilty.5 practical matter, short, different outset, drop part bargain. nonetheless drew distinction between "concessions existing indictment," threats bring severe contained indictment—a line it necessary order establish prophylactic rule guard against evil prosecutorial vindictiveness.6 Quite apart chronological distinction, however, acted vindictively present since conceded influenced desire induce plea.7 ultimate conclusion seems acts process whenever hopes gain III 7 recently occasion observe: "[W]hatever might situation ideal world, fact open acknowledgment previously clandestine practice recognize counsel negotiations, Brady States, 397 742, 758, 90 1463, 1474, 25 747, need public record indicating knowingly voluntarily made, Boykin Alabama, 238, 242, 1709, 1711, 274, requirement promise must kept, Santobello New York, 404 257, 262, 92 495, 498, 30 427. case, deal considerations these, but held substance itself limitations Amendment. Cf. supra, U.S., 751 n. 8, S.Ct., 1470. For reasons follow, we concluded mistaken so ruling. IV 8 725, 2080, "requires vindictiveness having successfully attacked first conviction play receives new trial." same principle later applied prohibit reindicting misdemeanant invoked remedy, "realistic likelihood 'vindictiveness.' " 27, 2102. 9 In those cases dealing State's unilateral imposition penalty upon who chosen legal attack conviction—a "very give-and-take negotiation common defense, arguably possess relatively equal power." Parker Carolina, 790, 809, 1458, 1479, 785 (opinion Brennan, J.). emphasized Pearce Perry lay deterred right, Colten Kentucky, 407 104, 1953, 32 584; Chaffin Stynchcombe, 412 17, 93 1977, 36 714, rather danger retaliating lawfully attacking conviction. 26-28, 2101-02. To most basic sort, 2082 Black, J.), agent pursue action whose objective penalize person's reliance rights "patently unconstitutional." 32-33, 20, 1986. Jackson, 390 570, 88 1209, 20 138. But bargaining, retaliation prosecution's 11 Plea flows "the mutuality advantage" prosecutors, each own wanting avoid trial. 752, 1471. Defendants advised competent protected other procedural safeguards presumptively capable intelligent choice response persuasion, unlikely driven false self-condemnation. 1474. Indeed, acceptance legitimacy necessarily implies rejection any notion involuntary sense simply end result By hypothesis, induced promises recommendation lenient reduction charges, fear greater ABA Project Standards Justice, Pleas Guilty 3.1 (App. Draft 1968); Note, Bargaining Transformation Process, Harv.L.Rev. 564 (1977). 751, 1470; Alford, 400 25, 91 160, 27 162. 12 confronting risk "discouraging effect assertion trial rights, difficult choices [is] inevitable"—and permissible—"attribute system tolerates encourages pleas." 31, 1985. follows that, tolerating encouraging pleas, 13 properly chargeable system, probable cause believe committed defined prosecute, file jury, generally rests entirely discretion.8 Within limits set legislature's valid definition offenses, conscious some selectivity enforcement violation" selection [not] deliberately based unjustifiable standard race, religion, arbitrary classification." Oyler Boles, 368 448, 456, 82 501, 506, 446. hold "unjustifiable standard," which, like race decision, contradict very premises underlie concept itself. Moreover, rigid acting forthrightly dealings defense could invite unhealthy subterfuge drive back into shadows emerged. 76, 1630. 14 There doubt breadth discretion vests prosecuting attorneys potential both individual institutional abuse.9 And broad though be, undoubtedly its exercise. engaged than openly presented unpleasant alternatives forgoing facing prosecution, violate 15 judgment 16 Reversed. 17 BLACKMUN, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 18 I feel Court, although purporting narrowly (that is, case," ante, page), departing from, least restricting, established 656 (1969), 628 (1974). If decisions sound salutary, assume are, require, my view, affirmance, reversal, 19 indeed notes, 362, "vindictiveness 2080. trial, explained "based information concerning identifiable occurring sentencing proceeding," pursued appeal collateral remedy. 726, 2081. hand, court, aware second otherwise shown product vindictiveness, application. 714 (1973). Then later, prevented reindictment exercised misdemeanor de novo. noted "considerable stake" discouraging appeal. Ibid. 21 says, concern import despite difference concerned negotiation, where, said, 363, "there offer." Yet extent ; admitted, 358 1, sole discourage respondent exercising trial.1 Even admission conducted face less fail, creates "a strong inference" vindictiveness. Judge McCree aptly observed, writing unanimous panel Circuit, initially "makes discretionary determination interests served seeking charges." 44 (1976). therefore understand why, require justify basis 22 Prosecutorial me, narrow context, ought protect. perceive little describes, "legal conviction," 'give-and-take bargaining.' context still should protect it, however asserts rightly held, affirm argued really makes how here, decided. gives full sway contrary result, merely prompt aggressive every thereafter consequences adverse, charge, increased bail, run inclined bargained plea. Nonetheless, far preferable content eyes public.2 24 POWELL, Although agree much opinion, am satisfied just requirements 26 Respondent charged single check $88.30. Under law, years, apparently regard forgery. consideration observe, point, hardly characterized generous Apparently viewed declined it; protested innocent insisted going adhered position even Act convicted, convictions. initial assessment respondent's circumstances convictions relevant view old offense. rape pleaded lesser included "detaining female." One participants incident imprisonment. sent reformatory years. Respondent's robbery. prison, placed probation time. within Act, offenses themselves imprisonment; yet addition involving $88.30 subjected life.1 Persons murder punished severely. 28 No explanation appears escalate purpose majority accepts characterization events. 364. 29 me asked reasonably place. deference courts accord perhaps foreclose judicial criticism sought unreasonable seemed.2 evidently reasonable, responsible societal implications limited accompanying $88 confirmed inappropriateness applying statute.3 think inferred himself deemed put jeopardy situations fresh plausible justification reasonable know why harsher sought, inquiry motive neither indicated nor likely fruitful. cases, differ materially one higher outset. 360-361. 31 Here, unnecessary candid threatened procure procured rights. stated unequivocal terms, discussing 138 (1968), "Jackson clear subsequent dulled their force: 'patently unconstitutional.' 1986, 747 (1970), approved "situation judge, both, employ powers particular tender guilty." recognized essential functioning criminal-justice normally affords genuine benefits well society. work effectively, prosecutors accorded widest discretion, limits, conducting bargaining. 2, supra. especially represented presumably Only exceptional conclude scales unevenly balanced arouse suspicion. actions admitted unique severity Implementation strategy calculated deter discretion. facts cross-examining proceedings described following language: "Isn't told you [the session] intend . save taking up intended ask them convictions?" Tr. 194. At statute provided "[a]ny third shall confined penitentiary life." That replaced 532.080 (Supp. 1977) to, most, indeterminate 532.080(6)(b). addition, year imposed, completed offense, over age committed. meet conditions. 3, infra. According testimony, 1961, old, detaining female, rape, reformatory. 1970 robbery years' imprisonment, released immediately. unreported. Compare ex rel. Williams McMann, 436 103 (CA2), Ruesga-Martinez, 534 1367, 1370 (CA9). citing endorse them. "Although concessions threaten consequence insists When obtains known permit, charges. procures crime, inference created circumstances, action." 44-45. "In inferred. it." involve adverse treatment accused, ALI Model Code Pre-Arraignment Procedure, Commentary 350.3, pp. 614-615 (1975), pose inducing skewing risks consider. 747. many recommendations controlled means either internal external guidelines. Procedure §§ 350.3(2)-(3) (1975); Prosecution Function 2.5, 3.9 1971); Abrahms, Internal Policy: Guiding Exercise Discretion, UCLA L.Rev. (1971). premise practice, nevertheless observed: "We make reference Colon Hendry, 408 864 (CA5 1969); Jamison, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 505 (1974); DeMarco, 401 F.Supp. (C.D.Cal.1975), aff'd, 550 1224 (CA9 1977), cert. denied, 827, 105, 34 85 (1977); Ruesga Martinez, 1369 1976). saying so, sometimes appropriate disposition defendant, add support today's approval advantages gained never sanctioned deliberate overcharging taken cynical 162 (1970); 427 Normally, course, impossible show doing, deferred decisions. sanctioned, fairness beginning filliped end. First, reach knowledge willingness guilty; hence truly believes innocent, wishes go quite devastating gamble fixed incentives average Second, healthful keep practices visible general public, political bodies judge policy being followed fair one. Visibility cards making unrecorded verbal warnings indictments come. Finally, pressure way knowing entitled charge. dispute then-current conceivable instructed ultimately moved Legislature amend refused onerous forgery indication once obtained, gi en another chance exchange five-year sentence. suggested will eligible serving suggests, 360-361, cannot distinguished enhancement agrees alike were assumed hypothetical occasioned theory, condemn practices. largely unreviewable. majority's confuses propriety unreviewability. instant problem proof. subsequently determined swept too broadly identify adequately kind trigger satisfy criteria revised statute; impact applied, reduced significantly situations, one, minor. 359 2.

Category: 0