Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatutetrialpleahabeas corpusdue processprosecutor
defendantstatutetrialpleaarraignmentdue processprosecutorgrand jury

Related Cases

Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456, 35 Fla. L. Weekly S731, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S18
View Case »
Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police of City of New York, 245 U.S. 128, 38 S.Ct. 41, 62 L.Ed. 193
View Case »
People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155, 325 P.3d 972, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6064, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6979
View Case »
People of State of New York v. Van De Carr, 199 U.S. 552, 26 S.Ct. 144, 50 L.Ed. 305
View Case »
Crocker v. State, 573 S.W.2d 190
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hayes v. Cowan, 547 F.2d 42

Facts

The petitioner, Hayes, was indicted for forgery and during plea negotiations, the prosecutor offered a five-year sentence if he pleaded guilty. Hayes refused and insisted on a trial, after which the prosecutor obtained a new indictment under the habitual criminal statute, leading to a mandatory life sentence upon conviction. The prosecutor's actions were seen as retaliatory for Hayes exercising his right to a trial.

The facts which led to petitioner's conviction and incarceration are not disputed. On January 8, 1973, he was indicted for forgery of a check in the amount of $88.30 by a Fayette County, Kentucky grand jury. After arraignment, a pretrial conference was held with the state prosecutor. During this conference, the prosecutor offered to recommend a five-year sentence if Hayes would plead guilty. Petitioner was warned that if he did not plead guilty, he would be charged under the habitual criminal statute.

Issue

Did the prosecutor's threat to indict the defendant as an habitual offender if he did not plead guilty violate the defendant's right to due process?

Did the prosecutor's threat to indict the defendant as an habitual offender if he did not plead guilty violate the defendant's right to due process?

Rule

Due process requires that a defendant be free from fear of retaliatory action when asserting procedural rights, and prosecutorial tactics that suggest vindictiveness are impermissible.

Due process requires that a defendant be free from fear of retaliatory action when asserting procedural rights, and prosecutorial tactics that suggest vindictiveness are impermissible.

Analysis

The court found that the prosecutor's actions created a strong inference of vindictiveness, as the only reason for the more severe habitual criminal charges was Hayes' insistence on going to trial. The court emphasized that the prosecutor's discretion should not be exercised in a manner that coerces a defendant into pleading guilty.

In this case the prosecutor does not assert that any event occurred between the issuance of the first indictment and the issuance of the second to influence his decision except petitioner's insistence upon his right to trial.

Conclusion

The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition and remanded the case with instructions for the petitioner's discharge, except for lawful confinement related to the forgery charge.

Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to order petitioner's discharge except for his confinement under a lawful sentence imposed solely for the crime of uttering a forged instrument.

Who won?

Hayes prevailed in the case because the court determined that his due process rights were violated by the prosecutor's coercive tactics during plea negotiations.

Hayes prevailed in the case because the court determined that his due process rights were violated by the prosecutor's coercive tactics during plea negotiations.

You must be