Bordenkircher v. Hayes - Significance, Impact, Pro And Con: Plea Bargaining, Further Readings

court petitioner justices guilty

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

Bordenkircher v. Hayes - Significance

The Supreme Court chose to adjudicate this case in an effort to clarify previous decisions, which had not provided specific criteria under which the plea bargaining process should be conducted. Justices for the majority held that although prosecutors might threaten to pursue harsher sentences if a potential defendant chose to plea "not guilty" and go to trial, such negotiations did not constitute …

Bordenkircher v. Hayes - Impact

In rendering a decision, the Court was faced with a challenge to their previous decisions that tacitly supported plea bargaining. In order to clarify its position, the Court agreed to hear the case, and in order to provide guidance to lower courts, the justices reiterated and recognized the importance of the plea bargaining process in the U.S. judicial system. The majority held that a prosecutor h…

Bordenkircher v. Hayes - Pro And Con: Plea Bargaining

Accused criminals are often offered opportunities to plead guilty to a lesser charges rather than go to trial and risk conviction under more severe charges. For instance, a prosecutor may offer to charge a litigant with manslaughter as opposed to trying to fight for a murder conviction. In such cases, manslaughter carries with it a lighter sentence. Detractors of plea bargaining claim that it the …

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.