Court Opinion

ID: 9428831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:24:55.831366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:15.476286
License: Public Domain

Justice Brennan,
with whom Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.
In Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21 (1974), this Court held that the Due Process Clause prohibits a prosecutor from re*387sponding to the defendant’s invocation of his statutory right to a trial de novo, by bringing more serious charges against him that arise out of the same conduct. In the case before us, the prosecutor responded to the defendant’s invocation of his statutory and constitutional right to a trial by jury by raising petty offenses to felony charges based on the same conduct. Yet the Court holds, in the teeth of Blackledge, that here there is no denial of due process. In my view, Blackledge requires affirmance of the Court of Appeals, and the Court’s attempt to distinguish that case from the present one is completely unpersuasive.
The salient facts of this case are quite simple. Respondent was originally charged with several petty offenses and misdemeanors — speeding, reckless driving, failing to give aid at the scene of an accident, fleeing from a police officer, and assault by striking a police officer — arising from his conduct on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. Assuming that respondent had been convicted on every count charged in this original complaint, the maximum punishment to which he conceivably could have been exposed was fines of $3,500 and 28 months in prison.1 Because all of the charges against respondent were petty offenses or misdemeanors, they were scheduled for trial before a magistrate, see 28 U. S. C. § 636(a)(3); 18 U. S. C. § 3401(a), who was not authorized to *388conduct jury trials, see ante, at 371, n. 1. In addition, the case was assigned to a prosecutor who, owing to inexperience, was not even authorized to try felony cases. Thus the Government recognized that respondent’s alleged crimes were relatively minor, and attempted to dispose of them in an expedited manner. But respondent frustrated this attempt at summary justice by demanding a jury trial in Federal District Court. This was his right, of course, not only under the applicable statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3401(b), but also under the Constitution.2
Respondent’s demand required that the case be transferred from the Magistrate’s Court in Hyattsville to the District Court in Baltimore, and that the prosecution be reassigned to an Assistant United States Attorney, who was authorized to prosecute cases in the District Court. The new prosecutor sought and obtained a second, four-count indictment, in which the same conduct originally charged as petty-offense and misdemeanor counts was now charged as a misdemeanor and two felonies: assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer with a deadly weapon, and assault with a dangerous weapon. If we assume (as before) that respondent was convicted on all of these charges, his maximum exposure to punishment had now become fines of $11,500 and 15 years in prison.3 Respondent’s claim below was that such *389an elevation of the charges against him from petty offenses to felonies, following his exercise of his statutory and constitutional right to a jury trial, reflected prosecutorial vindictiveness that denied him due process of law.
The Court attempts to denigrate respondent’s claim by asserting that this case “involves presumptions,” ante, at 369, and by arguing that “there is no evidence in this case that could give rise to a claim of actual vindictiveness,” ante, at 380 (emphasis in original). By casting respondent’s claim in terms of a “mere” legal presumption, the Court hopes to make that claim appear to be unreal or technical. But such an approach is contrary to the letter and spirit of Blackledge. There we focused upon the accused’s “apprehension of . . . retaliatory motivation,” 417 U. S., at 28, and we held that the Due Process Clause is violated when situations involving increased punishment “pose a realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness,’” id., at 27. In such situations, the criminal defendant’s apprehension of retaliatory motivation does not amount to an unreal or technical violation of his constitutional rights. On the contrary, as we recognized in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 725 (1969), “the fear of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter a defendant’s exercise” of his rights.
The Com! does not contend that Blackledge is inapplicable to instances of pretrial as well as post-trial vindictiveness. But after examining the record before us for objective indications of such vindictiveness, the Court concludes, ante, at 382, that “a presumption of vindictiveness is not warranted in this case.” With all respect, I disagree both with the Court’s conclusion and with its reasoning. In my view, the question here is not one of “presumptions.” Rather, I would analyze respondent’s claim in the terms employed by our precedents. Did the elevation of the charges against respondent “pose a realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness?’” See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S., at 27. Is it possible that “the fear of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter” a person in respondent’s position from exercising his statutory and *390constitutional right to a jury trial? See North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, at 725. The answer to these questions is plainly “Yes.”
The Court suggests, ante, at 883, that the distinction between a bench trial and a jury trial is unimportant in this context. Such a suggestion is demonstrably fallacious. Experienced criminal practitioners, for both prosecution and defense, know that a jury trial entails far more prosecu-torial work than a bench trial. Defense challenges to the potential-juror array, voir dire examination of potential jurors, and suppression hearings all take up a prosecutor’s time before a jury trial, adding to his scheduling difficulties and caseload. More care in the preparation of his requested instructions, of his witnesses, and of his own remarks is necessary in order to avoid mistrial or reversible error. And there is always the specter of the “irrational” acquittal by a jury that is unreviewable on appeal. Thus it is simply inconceivable that a criminal defendant’s election to be tried by jury would be a matter of indifference to his prosecutor. On the contrary, the prosecutor would almost always prefer that the defendant waive such a “troublesome” right. And if the defendant refuses to do so, the prosecutor’s subsequent elevation of the charges against the defendant manifestly poses a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.
The truth of my conclusion, and the patent fallacy of the Court’s, is particularly evident on the record before us. The practical effect of respondent’s demand for a jury trial was that the Government had to transfer the case from a trial before a Magistrate in Hyattsville to a trial before a District Judge and jury in Baltimore, and had to substitute one prosecutor for another. The Government thus suffered not only administrative inconvenience: It also lost the value of the preparation and services of the first prosecutor, and was forced to commit a second prosecutor to prepare the case from scratch. Thus, just as in Blackledge, respondent’s elec*391tion had the effect of “clearly requiring] increased expenditures of prosecutorial resources before the defendant’s conviction” could finally be achieved. 417 U. S., at 27. And, to paraphrase Blackledge,
“if the prosecutor has the means readily at hand to discourage such [elections] — by ‘upping the ante’ through a felony indictment. . . —the State can insure that only the most hardy defendants will brave the hazards of a [jury] trial.” Cf. id., at 27-28.
I conclude that the facts of this case easily support the inference of “a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.”
The Court discusses Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357 (1978), ante, at 377-380, and suggests some analogy between that case and the present one, ante, at 380. In my view, such an analogy is quite inapt. Bordenkircher dealt only with the context of plea bargaining and with the narrow situation in which the prosecutor “openly presented the defendant with the unpleasant alternatives of forgoing trial or facing [increased] charges.” 434 U. S., at 365. Borden-kircher did not remotely suggest that a pretrial increase in charges, made as a response to a demand for jury trial, would not present a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness when the demand put the prosecution to an added burden such as that imposed in this case. Indeed, Bordenkircher expressly distinguished its facts from those in Blackledge and Pearce: “In those cases the Court was dealing with the State’s unilateral imposition of a penalty upon a defendant who had chosen to exercise a legal right. . . —a situation ‘very different from the give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining ....’” 434 U. S., at 362, quoting Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U. S. 790, 809 (1970). The facts in this case plainly fit within the pattern of Pearce and Blackledge, not of Bordenkircher. There was no ongoing “give-and-take negotiation” between respondent and the Government, and there *392was the “unilateral imposition of a penalty” in response to respondent’s choice “to exercise a legal right.”
Because it seems clear to me that Blackledge requires it, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

 Two counts of “speeding” and one count of “reckless driving,” in violation of 36 CFR §§ 50.31, 50.32 (1981), are each punishable by fines of not more than $500, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, 36 CFR § 50.5(a) (1981). One count of “failing to give aid at the scene of an accident,” in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 7, 13, Md. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 20-102,20-104 (1977), is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or imprisonment for not more than four months, or both, §§27-101(c)(12), (14). One count of “fleeing from a police officer,” in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 7,13, Md. Transp. Code Ann. § 21-904 (1977), is punishable by a fine of not more than $500, § 27-101(b). One count of “assault by striking” a police officer, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 113(d), is punishable by a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.

 See District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U. S. 63, 73-74 (1930); United States v. Hamdan, 552 F. 2d 276, 278-280 (CA9 1977); United States v. Sanchez-Meza, 547 F. 2d 461, 464-465 (CA9 1976); United States v. Potvin, 481 F. 2d 380, 381-383 (CA10 1973).

 “Assaulting, resisting, or impeding” a federal officer with a deadly weapon, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 111, is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. "Assault with a dangerous weapon,” in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 113(c), is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. A third count in the new indictment was “fleeing from a police officer,” in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 7,13, Md. Transp. Code Ann. § 21-904 (1977), which is punishable by a fine of not more than $500, § 27-101(b). The fourth count of the indictment was “failure to appear,” in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 3150.