Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/righteous-accountability-versus-forbidden-retaliation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:55:27+00:00

Document:
You may have heard of such a case. After preparing for weeks, a prosecutor took a defendant to trial and, in the course of full-blown proceedings with a reticent victim, dueling experts, and an agile adversary, obtained what seemed to be an appropriate conviction and sentence: say, 40 years for aggravated sexual assault. Satisfied, the prosecutor moved on to other cases. Weeks or months later, however, a court finds reversible error—maybe even as a result of no act or omission on the prosecutor’s part—and awards the defendant a new trial. Frustrated with the lack of finality and even more determined to hold the defendant accountable, the prosecutor starts all over again. The prosecutor works even harder, adds another charge, and eventually obtains a more severe sentence on retrial—now 60 years. The prosecutor feels some sense of gratification because the defendant finally got what he deserved.
Seeking a harsher result or assessing a more severe penalty against a defendant because he has obtained a retrial after a successful legal challenge is vindictive. Not only does it punish the defendant for doing what he is legally entitled to, it also has a chilling effect on a defendant’s exercise of his trial and appellate rights. If a defendant knows that he is likely to face a more severe punishment after a successful direct appeal or collateral attack, he is less likely to assert his rights to a fair trial.5 Moreover, the Supreme Court has identified an “institutional bias inherent in the judicial system against the retrial of issues that have already been decided.”6 Thus, to some degree, there is an inherent risk that the integrity of trial and appellate proceedings can be substantially undermined.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has addressed prosecutorial vindictiveness in six published opinions over the last 30 years, and the Supreme Court has decided fewer still. But our state criminal high court’s last opinion on the topic was six years ago and, currently, there is national discourse on prosecutorial misconduct; thus, it seems timely to remind ourselves of the nature of the claim.
A “presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness” is proven when there is proof of circumstances that pose a “realistic likelihood” of such misconduct. The State must overcome this presumption by rebutting it or suffer dismissal of the charges.11 But, as we will see below, a presumption does not always attach.
“Actual vindictiveness” is proven when there is “direct evidence that the prosecutor’s charging decision is an unjustifiable penalty resulting solely from the defendant’s exercise of a protected legal right.”12 The defendant has the burden of both production and persuasion unaided by any presumption, and the burden is a tough one.
In the event that a defendant brings a claim of vindictiveness but is unable to prove either actual vindictiveness or a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness, the trial judge need not reach the issue of government justification, and the State can remain mute.13 Nevertheless, a careful trial judge or prosecutor may choose to develop the record so as to dispose of the claim once and for all time. This is especially true if the hearing is conducted near the time of the trial when memories are fresh, witnesses are available, and detail can be provided.
The Due Process Clause is not offended by all possibilities of increased punishment upon retrial after appeal, only by those that pose a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.14 If a defendant obtains a new trial from the trial judge rather than an appellate court, no motivation for vindictiveness arises; after all, the trial judge awarded the new proceedings.15 If the case is simply the same one tried to a different jury or a different trial judge, without additional or more severe charges brought by the prosecution, a concern of retaliation should not arise. The fresh jury or judge on retrial can increase the sentence from that previously assessed usually without danger of a successful claim of retaliation. Neither a fresh judge nor a fresh jury should care about any prior proceedings or results (to the extent they are re-deciding them) and, at least, should not be ill-motivated simply because the defendant prevailed on appealing after the first trial.16 Simply, they have no personal stake in the prior proceedings.
With pretrial prosecutorial decisions to amend the charge, the Supreme Court has advised, “A mere opportunity for vindictiveness is insufficient to justify the imposition of a prophylactic rule.”17 So no presumption automatically attaches to pretrial charging decisions.
In any case, events at the retrial can readily provide all that is required to rebut a claim of vindictiveness. First, during trial the judge may gather a fuller appreciation of the nature and extent of the crimes charged. Second, the defendant’s conduct during trial may give the judge insights into his moral character and suitability for rehabilitation. Third, after trial, the factors that may have indicated leniency as consideration for the guilty plea may no longer be present.29 Thus, just ask the trial judge to put her detailed reasons on the record.
Besides developing a record on why increased charges or a harsher sentence is warranted on a retrial, the tour de force is securing favorable findings of fact. In Texas v. McCullough, a jury convicted and assessed a 20-year sentence but, after reversal on appeal, the trial judge assessed a 50-year sentence.31 The Supreme Court found no basis for applying a presumption of vindictiveness because the defendant had elected to go to the judge for sentencing.
Just as significantly, however, the trial judge had given detailed reasons for the enlarged sentence: She thought the prior sentence too lenient in light of significant new evidence heard at the second trial. Describing this explanation as “findings,” the Supreme Court held that, even if the presumption of vindictiveness was to apply, the findings were sufficient to overcome the presumption. Thus, obtaining a trial judge’s explanation to prevent a claim of judicial vindictiveness or findings of fact to head off a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness can resolve any claim and may even serve to avert one altogether.
If events at a retrial could give rise to a claim of vindictiveness—either prosecutorial or judicial—protect a conviction with an adequate record. Ensure that there are detailed reasons for the different charges or more severe penalty and, if prosecutorial vindictiveness is at issue, request findings of fact. These steps are not difficult to accomplish, but they serve well to safeguard cases in which a defendant’s accountability and any victims’ peace of mind has already been postponed for too long.
1 The Supreme Court of the United States has even reproduced an inmate’s letter reflecting concern about the likelihood of a harsher sentence on retrial. See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 725 n.20 (1969).
2 For reasons of space, this article is confined to the leading decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
3 Pearce, 395 U.S. at 725.
4 See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974) (prosecutorial vindictiveness); Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (judicial vindictiveness).
5 Pearce, 395 U.S. at 725-26.
6 United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 376 (1982).
7 Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978) (after defendant declined a plea bargain agreement, the State also charged him as a recidivist).
8 Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 169, 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
9 Hayes, 434 U.S. at 363 (citations omitted), quoted in Castleberry v. State, 704 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
10 Neal, 150 S.W.3d at 174.
14 Perry, 417 U.S. at 27.
15 Castleberry, 704 S.W.2d at 24.
16 See Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 140 n.3 (1986) (noting that, despite other courts implying a presumption of vindictiveness even where different judges were involved, the Supreme Court did not specifically address the issue in its seminal case and, further, a subsequent judge has no personal stake in the prior reversed conviction); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (1973) (different juries).
17 Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 384 (after a defendant elected for a jury trial on misdemeanor charges, the government obtained an additional felony charge).
18 Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 801 (1989), overruling Simpson v. Rice, the companion case to Pearce, 395 U.S. 711.
19 Hayes, 343 U.S. at 363 (emphasis in original).
20 Alvarez v. State, 536 S.W.2d 357, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (op. on reh’g).
21 Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 382 (1982) (explaining Hayes, 434 U.S 357).
22 See Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368.
23 See Lopez v. State, 928 S.W.2d 528, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
24 Hood v. State, 185 S.W.3d 445, 450 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
25 Id. at 450 n.16.
26 See Neal, 150 S.W.3d at 175-80 (claim untimely, not specific, and not ruled upon); see also Hood, 185 S.W.3d at 449 (claim procedurally defaulted because it was not first presented to the trial court).
27 See Smith, 490 U.S. at 798-99.
28 Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 117 (1972) (rejecting claim of judicial vindictiveness under two-tier misdemeanor system—similar to Texas’ municipal and county court system—of prosecution).
29 Smith, 490 U.S. at 803.
30 Walker v. State, 557 S.W.2d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).
31 McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (after a jury assessed sentence, the trial judge granted a new trial on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, presided at the retrial, and personally assessed sentence).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.