Opinion ID: 665588
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-trial Phase

Text: 15 When an appellant alleges vindictive post-trial prosecution, a presumption of vindictiveness may apply. 5 We assume without deciding that the vindictiveness presumption applies here. The government must dispel this presumption by showing that the decision to change the charges did not stem from a vindictive motive, or was justified by independent reasons or intervening circumstances that dispel the appearance of vindictiveness. See United States v. Gallegos-Curiel, 681 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.1982). Accord United States v. Motley, 655 F.2d 186, 190 (9th Cir.1981) (government must point to objective factors to support decision to increase possible punishment). 16 Here, the government justifies the new charge on the second quantity of methamphetamine by pointing to the fact [that] defendant made incriminating admissions at the first trial with regard to this quantity and ... the reasons for not charging this quantity--presenting a short, streamlined case--were no longer present since defendant intended to introduce the previously uncharged drugs into evidence even if the government did not. The government had objective reasons justifying its conduct and Morton was not vindictively prosecuted.