Opinion ID: 595127
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vindictive, Selective and Arbitrary Prosecution

Text: 7 A vindictive prosecution claim rests on the principle that due process is violated when the government retaliates against a defendant for exercising a statutory, procedural or constitutional right. E.g., Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2102, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974). 8 Defendants do not state a claim for vindictive prosecution. At most, Defendants exercised their rights to plead not guilty and to refuse a plea agreement. But there is no appearance of vindictiveness when a defendant refuses to plead guilty and additional, more serious charges are then filed. E.g., Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364-65, 98 S.Ct. 663, 668-69, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978); United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 382, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 2493, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982); United States v. Gallegos-Curiel, 681 F.2d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir.1982). 9 Vindictiveness is unlikely when separate sovereigns bring the charges. E.g., United States v. Ballester, 763 F.2d 368, 370 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 842, 106 S.Ct. 126, 88 L.Ed.2d 103 (1985). Defendants insist that, with respect to their prosecution, Multnomah County and the U.S. Attorney were acting as one sovereign. However, cooperation between state and federal authorities in investigating and trying a case does not mean that the two are acting as a single sovereign. United States v. Figueroa-Soto, 938 F.2d 1015, 1018-19 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1181, 117 L.Ed.2d 424 (1992). At most, only cooperation is shown here. 10 Moreover, no due process violation arises from a decision to refer a case for federal, rather than state, prosecution in order to make use of the harsher penalties available under federal law. United States v. Nance, 962 F.2d 860, 865 (9th Cir.1992). 11 Defendants have not identified any suspect classification, such as race, religion, gender or similar characteristic, which would support a claim of selective prosecution. Thus, the court has no authority to inquire into the prosecutor's charging decisions based on allegations that the prosecution was arbitrary and capricious. E.g., United States v. Sitton, 968 F.2d 947, 953 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, No. 92-6112, 1992 WL 289332 (Nov. 9, 1992); United States v. Diaz, 961 F.2d 1417, 1420 (9th Cir.1992); Nance, 962 F.2d at 865. The district court therefore properly denied Defendants' claims of selective and arbitrary prosecution.