United States v. Armstrong
| United States v. Armstrong | |
|---|---|
 L. Ed. 2d 687 | |
| Case history | |
| Prior | |
| Holding | |
| The burden of proof for selective prosecution rests with the defendant, who must show the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg; Breyer (in part) |
| Concurrence | Souter |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in part and in judgment) |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Syllabus
Ninth Circuit en banc
, which ruled the proof requirements do not compel the defendant to demonstrate the Government has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure16, which governs discovery in criminal cases, exempts the work product of Government attorneys and agents made in connection with the case's investigation.
- Under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the decision whether to prosecute may not be based on an arbitrary classification such as race or religion. Thus a defendant must produce credible evidence that similarly situated defendants of other races could have been prosecuted, but were not, in order to be entitled to discovery.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, 8–1.
John P. Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion
.
External links
- Text of United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)