|
|
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978)
Bordenkircher v. Hayes No. 76-1334 Argued November 9, 1977 Decided January 18, 1978 434 U.S. 357
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated when.a state prosecutor carries out a threat made during plea negotiations to have the accused reindicted on more serious charges on which he is plainly subject to prosecution if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged. Pp. 360-365.
(a)
[T]he guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country’s criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned.
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71. Pp. 361-362
(b) Though to punish a person because he has done what the law allows violates due process, see North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 738, there is no such element of punishment in the "give-and-take" of plea bargaining as long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecutor’s offer. Pp. 362-364.
(c) This Court has accepted as constitutionally legitimate the simple reality that the prosecutor’s interest at the bargaining table is to persuade the defendant to forgo his right to plead not guilty, and, in pursuing that course here, the prosecutor did not exceed constitutional bounds. Pp. 364-365.
547 F.2d 42, reversed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, .JJ., joined, post, p. 365. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 368.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) in 434 U.S. 357 434 U.S. 358. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GYPMLWWA4V6VY7S.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978), in 434 U.S. 357, page 434 U.S. 358. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GYPMLWWA4V6VY7S.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978). cited in 1978, 434 U.S. 357, pp.434 U.S. 358. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GYPMLWWA4V6VY7S.
|