Selective prosecution: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→In the United States: add Hunter Biden |
imported>Zackmann08 m removing template per TFD |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Legal defense based on claiming the prosecutor is discriminatory}} | {{short description|Legal defense based on claiming the prosecutor is discriminatory}} | ||
{{Globalize|2name=the United States|2=USA|date=August 2024}} | {{Globalize|2name=the United States|2=USA|date=August 2024}} | ||
In [[jurisprudence]], '''selective prosecution''' is a [[procedural defense]] in which [[defendant]]s argue that they should not be held criminally [[Legal liability|liable]] for breaking the [[law]] because the [[criminal justice]] system [[discrimination|discriminated]] against them by choosing to [[prosecute]]. In claims of selective prosecution, defendants essentially argue that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of different age, [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], [[religion]], sex, [[gender]], 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. | In [[jurisprudence]], '''selective prosecution''' is a [[procedural defense]] in which [[defendant]]s argue that they should not be held criminally [[Legal liability|liable]] for breaking the [[law]] because the [[criminal justice]] system [[discrimination|discriminated]] against them by choosing to [[prosecute]]. In claims of selective prosecution, defendants essentially argue that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of different age, [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], [[religion]], sex, [[gender]], 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. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
In the [[United States]], this defense is based upon the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]], which stipulates, "nor shall any [[U.S. state|state]] deny to any person within its [[jurisdiction]] the [[social equality|equal]] protection of the laws." The [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] has defined the term as: "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution."<ref>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Armstrong |vol=517 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=456 |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=1996 |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-157.ZO.html}}</ref> The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Chin |first=Gabriel J. |year=2008 |title=Unexplainable on Grounds of Race: Doubts About ''Yick Wo'' |journal=University of Illinois Law Review |volume=2008 |issue=5 |pages=1359–1392 |url=https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2008/5/Chin.pdf }}</ref> In ''[[United States v. Armstrong]]'' (1996), the Supreme Court ruled the [[Attorney General of the United States|Attorney General]] and [[United States Attorney]]s "retain 'broad discretion' to enforce the Nation's criminal laws"<ref>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Goodwin |vol=457 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=368 |pinpoint=382 |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=1982 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/368/}}</ref> and that "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties."<ref name=272us1>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. |vol=272 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=1 |pinpoint=14–15 |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=1926 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/1/}}</ref> Therefore, the defendant must present "clear evidence to the contrary",<ref name=272us1/> which demonstrates "the federal prosecutorial policy 'had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.'"<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Oyler v. Boles |vol=368 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=448 |pinpoint=456 |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=1962 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/368/448/}}</ref> | In the [[United States]], this defense is based upon the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]], which stipulates, "nor shall any [[U.S. state|state]] deny to any person within its [[jurisdiction]] the [[social equality|equal]] protection of the laws." The [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] has defined the term as: "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution."<ref>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Armstrong |vol=517 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=456 |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=1996 |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-157.ZO.html}}</ref> The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Chin |first=Gabriel J. |year=2008 |title=Unexplainable on Grounds of Race: Doubts About ''Yick Wo'' |journal=University of Illinois Law Review |volume=2008 |issue=5 |pages=1359–1392 |url=https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2008/5/Chin.pdf }}</ref> In ''[[United States v. Armstrong]]'' (1996), the Supreme Court ruled the [[Attorney General of the United States|Attorney General]] and [[United States Attorney]]s "retain 'broad discretion' to enforce the Nation's criminal laws"<ref>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Goodwin |vol=457 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=368 |pinpoint=382 |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=1982 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/368/}}</ref> and that "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties."<ref name=272us1>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. |vol=272 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=1 |pinpoint=14–15 |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=1926 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/1/}}</ref> Therefore, the defendant must present "clear evidence to the contrary",<ref name=272us1/> which demonstrates "the federal prosecutorial policy 'had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.'"<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Oyler v. Boles |vol=368 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=448 |pinpoint=456 |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=1962 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/368/448/}}</ref> | ||
Selective prosecution has been raised as a possible defense in the [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)|election obstruction case of Donald Trump]],<ref name="NYT">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/28/us/politics/trump-trial-date-jan-6.html |title=Judge Sets Trial Date in March for Trump's Federal Election Case |work=The New York Times |date=28 August 2023 |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Thrush |first2=Glenn }}</ref> and as a possible motivation for tax and firearms charges against [[Hunter Biden]].<ref>{{ | Selective prosecution has been raised as a possible defense in the [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)|election obstruction case of Donald Trump]],<ref name="NYT">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/28/us/politics/trump-trial-date-jan-6.html |title=Judge Sets Trial Date in March for Trump's Federal Election Case |work=The New York Times |date=28 August 2023 |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Thrush |first2=Glenn }}</ref> and as a possible motivation for tax and firearms charges against [[Hunter Biden]].<ref>{{citation|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/14/hunter-joe-biden-special-counsel-report|title=Hunter Biden special counsel hits out at president's selective prosecution claim|publisher=Associated Press|date=14 January 2025}}</ref> | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Deferred prosecution]] | |||
*[[Equal protection]] | *[[Equal protection]] | ||
*[[Malicious prosecution]] | *[[Malicious prosecution]] | ||
*[[Political prisoner]] | |||
*[[Racial profiling]] | |||
*[[Selective enforcement]] | *[[Selective enforcement]] | ||
*[[Sentencing disparity]] | *[[Sentencing disparity]] | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Latest revision as of 08:58, 17 October 2025
Template:Short description Script error: No such module "Unsubst". In jurisprudence, selective prosecution is a procedural defense in which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law because the criminal justice system discriminated against them by choosing to prosecute. In claims of selective prosecution, defendants essentially argue that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of different age, race, religion, sex, gender, 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.
In the United States
In the United States, this defense is based upon the 14th Amendment, which stipulates, "nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The U.S. Supreme Court has defined the term as: "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution."[1] The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.[2] In United States v. Armstrong (1996), the Supreme Court ruled the Attorney General and United States Attorneys "retain 'broad discretion' to enforce the Nation's criminal laws"[3] and that "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties."[4] Therefore, the defendant must present "clear evidence to the contrary",[4] which demonstrates "the federal prosecutorial policy 'had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.'"[5]
Selective prosecution has been raised as a possible defense in the election obstruction case of Donald Trump,[6] and as a possible motivation for tax and firearms charges against Hunter Biden.[7]
See also
- Deferred prosecution
- Equal protection
- Malicious prosecution
- Political prisoner
- Racial profiling
- Selective enforcement
- Sentencing disparity
References
<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />
- ↑ Template:If all, [Script error: No such module "If empty". 517 Template:Delink 456] (Supreme Court of the United States 1996).Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
- ↑ Template:If all, [Script error: No such module "If empty". 457 Template:Delink 368], 382 (Supreme Court of the United States 1982).Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".
- ↑ a b Template:If all, [Script error: No such module "If empty". 272 Template:Delink 1], 14–15 (Supreme Court of the United States 1926).Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".
- ↑ Template:If all, [Script error: No such module "If empty". 368 Template:Delink 448], 456 (Supreme Court of the United States 1962).Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".
Further reading
- David Cole, No Equal Justice (New Press rev. ed. 2008) Template:ISBN
- Angela Davis, Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor (Oxford 2007) Template:ISBN
- Cassia Spohn, Samuel Walker & Miriam Delone, The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America (2006) Template:ISBN
Template:Equal protection and criminal procedure Template:Miscarriage of Justice