Selective prosecution
In
, or political alignment, were engaged in the same illegal acts for which the defendant is being tried yet were not prosecuted, and that the defendant is being prosecuted specifically because of a bias as to that class.This theory, which is rarely successful even in more egregious cases of e.g. race, has been raised as a possible defense in the election obstruction case of Donald Trump.[1]
In the
Attorney General and United States Attorneys "retain 'broad discretion' to enforce the Nation's criminal laws"[4] and that "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties."[5] Therefore, the defendant must present "clear evidence to the contrary",[5] which demonstrates "the federal prosecutorial policy 'had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.'"[6]
See also
- Equal protection
- Malicious prosecution
- Selective enforcement
References
- ^ Feuer, Alan; Thrush, Glenn (28 August 2023). "Judge Sets Trial Date in March for Trump's Federal Election Case". The New York Times.
- ^ United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (Supreme Court of the United States 1996).
- ^ Chin, Gabriel J. (2008). "Unexplainable on Grounds of Race: Doubts About Yick Wo" (PDF). University of Illinois Law Review. 2008 (5): 1359–1392.
- ^ United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 382 (Supreme Court of the United States 1982).
- ^ a b United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14–15 (Supreme Court of the United States 1926).
- ^ Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (Supreme Court of the United States 1962).
Further reading
- David Cole, No Equal Justice (New Press rev. ed. 2008) ISBN 978-1-56584-947-1
- Angela Davis, Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor (Oxford 2007) ISBN 978-0-19-517736-7
- ISBN 978-0-534-62446-0
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |