U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - DUE PROCESS IS NOT VIOLATED WHEN PROSECUTOR CARRIES OUT THREAT TO BRING INCREASED CHARGES AFTER DEFENDANT REFUSES TO PLEAD GUILTY DURING PLEA BARGAINING SESSION - BORDENKIRCHER V. HAYES (U.S. 1978)

NCJ Number
58921
Journal
Villanova Law Review Volume: 24 Issue: 1 Dated: (NOVEMBER 1978) Pages: 142-156
Author(s)
ANON
Date Published
1978
Length
15 pages
Annotation
THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF BORDENKIRCHER V. HAYES, 434 U.S. 357 (1978 ARE DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF DUE PROCESS, INCREASED CHARGES, AND PLEA BARGAINING.
Abstract
FOLLOWING INDICTMENT BY A KENTUCKY GRAND JURY, PAUL LEWIS HAYES WAS ARRAIGNED FOR FORGERY OF A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $88.30. DURING A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, THE PROSECUTOR OFFERED TO RECOMMEND A 5-YEAR PRISON TERM IF HAYES WOULD PLEAD GUILTY, BUT ADVISED HAYES THAT HE WOULD ALSO BE CHARGED UNDER KENTUCKY'S HABITUAL CRIMINAL STATUTE IF HE REFUSED TO PLEAD GUILTY. AFTER THE DEFENDANT INSISTED UPON A FULL TRIAL, THE PROSECUTOR PROCEEDED TO OBTAIN A SECOND INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGED HAYES AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER. SUBSEQUENTLY, HAYES WAS FOUND GUILTY OF THE FORGERY OFFENSE AND A MANADATORY LIFE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED PURSUANT TO THE HABITUAL CRIMINAL STATUTE. THE KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY UPHELD THE DECISION, BUT THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE DECISIONS. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, HOLDING THAT DUE PROCESS IS NOT VIOLATED WHENEVER A PROSECUTOR, AFTER THREATENING TO INDICT A DEFENDANT ON A MORE SERIOUS CHARGE IF HE SHOULD REFUSE TO PLEAD GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE, OBTAINS SUCH AN ADDITIONAL INDICTMENT. THE IMPACT OF THIS DECISION COULD VARY ACCORDING TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING WAS LIMITED TO 'THAT COURSE OF CONDUCT ENGAGED IN BY THE PROSECUTOR IN THIS CASE'. AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION, THE LOWER COURTS WILL RESTRICT THEIR APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROSECUTORIAL VINDICTIVENESS. FOOTNOTES PROVIDED. (LWM)