The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Oral 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 Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Full Opinion: Criminal Procedure, Discovery and Inspection: 8 - 1
Voted with the majority, authored an opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, authored a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority, joined Rehnquist's opinion
O'Connor
Voted with the majority, joined Rehnquist's opinion
Scalia
Voted with the majority, joined Rehnquist's opinion
Kennedy
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence
Souter
Voted with the majority, joined Rehnquist's opinion
Thomas
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence
Breyer

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 ).