The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, February 26, 1996
Decision: Monday, May 13, 1996
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Discovery and Inspection
Categories: criminal, criminal procedure, equal protection, race, race discrimination

Advocates

Drew S. Days, III (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Barbara E. O'Connor (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Christopher Lee Armstrong and others were indicted on federal charges of "conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base (crack) and conspiring to distribute the same." The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had monitored Armstrong and others prior to their indictment and arrest. Armstrong filed a motion for discovery or dismissal, alleging that he was selected for prosecution because he was black. The District Court granted the discovery order. It ordered the government to provide statistics on similar cases from the last three years. The government indicated it would not comply. Subsequently, the District Court dismissed the case. The government appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. It held that the proof requirements for a selective-prosecution claim do not require a defendant to demonstrate that the government has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated.

Question

Must criminal defendants who pursue selective-prosecution claims demonstrate people of other races were not prosecuted for similar crimes?

Conclusion

Yes. In an 8-1 decision, announced by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that in order to file selective-prosecution claims, defendants must show that the government failed to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races. "If the claim . . . were well founded," wrote Rehnquist, "it should not have been an insuperable task to prove that persons of a different race were not prosecuted."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Wrote a regular concurrence
Breyer
Wrote a regular concurrence
Ginsburg
Wrote a regular concurrence
Souter
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_157/>
(last visited ).