CONSTITUTIONALITY OF REINDICTING SUCCESSFUL PLEA-BARGAIN APPELLANTS ON THE ORIGINAL HIGHER CHARGES

• NCJ Number: 15770
• Journal: California Law Review Volume: 62 Issue: 1 Dated: (JANUARY 1974) Pages: 258-293
• Author(s): T S WILLIAMSON
• Date Published: 1974
• Length: 36 pages
• Corporate Author: University of California
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

APPRAISES THE RULE PERMITTING REPROSECUTION ON THE ORIGINAL, HIGHER CHARGES IN RELATION TO DUE PROCESS, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, AND EQUAL PROTECTION.

Abstract

REPROSECUTION ON THE ORIGINAL, HIGHER CHARGES AFTER SUCCESSFUL APPEAL IS CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. USING NORTH CAROLINA V. PEARCE, THE POLICY OF IMPOSING HARSHER SENTENCES IN RETALIATION FOR TAKING AN APPEAL IS SAID TO BE A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. A DISCUSSION OF MULLREED V. KROPP IS INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE GENERAL INADEQUACY OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS A DOCTRINAL APPROACH TO THE SCOPE-OF-REPROSECUTION PROBLEM IN PLEA BARGAIN CASES. IT IS HELD THAT A COURT RELYING ON THE STRICT SCRUTINY OR INTENSIFIED MEANS STANDARD OF EQUAL PROTECTION SHOULD HOLD THAT THE RULE PERMITTING REPROSECUTION OF SUCCESSFUL PLEA-BARGAIN APPELLANTS ON THE ORIGINAL, HIGHER CHARGES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.