Court Opinion

ID: 9569769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:17:11.476601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:57.202509
License: Public Domain

RICHARDSON, J.
I concur in the judgment. While expressing serious reservations about the reach of the defense of discriminatory prosecution, I agree with the majority that the defense should be available to those very limited numbers of persons described in the opinion, namely, defendants who can establish that they would not otherwise have been prosecuted but for such discriminatoiy conduct. (Ante, at p. 298.) A serious offender, and the vast majority of offenders generally, would find it “extremely difficult” to make such a showing. (Ante, at pp. 303-304.)
McComb, J., and Clark, J., concurred.
The petition of the real party in interest for a rehearing was denied October 23, 1975.