Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of the United States · 1996 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSelective ProsecutionEqual ProtectionCriminal ProcedureDiscoveryselective prosecutionequal protectiondiscriminatory effect

Facts

Federal and local agents infiltrated a suspected crack distribution ring and, over seven occasions, informants bought 124.3 grams of crack from respondents and observed firearms during the sales. After respondents were indicted on federal drug and firearms charges, they sought discovery or dismissal, alleging they were selected for federal prosecution because they were black. Their supporting evidence consisted chiefly of an affidavit stating that in every one of 24 closed § 841 or § 846 cases handled by the Federal Public Defender's Office in 1991, the defendant was black, along with a study listing those defendants. The Government opposed discovery, arguing there was no evidence that similarly situated nonblack suspects were not prosecuted, and after the district court ordered discovery and the Government refused compliance, the court dismissed the indictment.

Issue

What showing must a criminal defendant make to obtain discovery in support of a claim that the prosecutor selected him for prosecution on the basis of race? Also, does Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 authorize discovery of Government materials for preparation of a selective-prosecution claim?

Rule

To obtain discovery on a selective-prosecution claim, a defendant must produce some evidence tending to show both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. To show discriminatory effect in a race case, the defendant must make a credible showing that similarly situated individuals of a different race could have been prosecuted but were not. Rule 16(a)(1)(C) authorizes discovery of Government documents material to the preparation of the defendant's defense against the Government's case in chief, but not to the preparation of selective-prosecution claims.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Detroit, federal prosecutors charged Darnell Price, a Black defendant, with gun-and-drug offenses. He moves for discovery on a selective-prosecution claim and submits only a spreadsheet from his defender's office showing that 31 of 31 clients charged federally with that offense combination over two years were Black.

Should the district court grant discovery?

Explanation. Discovery on a selective-prosecution claim requires some evidence tending to show both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. In a race case, discriminatory effect requires a credible showing that similarly situated persons of another race could have been prosecuted but were not. Statistics showing only that prosecuted defendants were all Black do not satisfy that requirement.