Bordenkircher v. Hayes
Significance, Impact, Pro And Con: Plea Bargaining, Further Readings
Petitioner
Don Bordenkircher, Kentucky State Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.
Respondent
Paul Lewis Hayes
Petitioner's Claim
Hayes claimed he had been denied his right to due process when, during plea bargaining, he was faced with either pleading guilty to a lesser charge or, if he entered a plea of "not guilty," facing prosecution under a Kentucky recidivist law that carried a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Robert L. Chenoweth
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
J. Vincent April II
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart (writing for the Court), Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
18 January 1978
Decision
The Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and upheld the decisions of two lower courts that the Petitioner's right of due process had not been constitutionally violated during plea bargaining when, by electing to exercise his right to trial, he was prosecuted under more stringent sentencing requirements.
Related Cases
- United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968).
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969).
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974).
Sources
Kapsch, Stefan J. "Plea Bargaining." The Guide to American Law: Everyone's Legal Encyclopedia. Minneapolis, MN: West, 1998.
Additional topics
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma - Significance, "overbreadth" Called Into Question, The Dissent On First Amendment Grounds
- Bigelow v. Virginia - Significance, Impact
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes - Further Readings
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes - Significance
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes - Impact
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes - Pro And Con: Plea Bargaining
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1973 to 1980