Bordenkircher v. Hayes - Significance, Impact, Pro And Con: Plea Bargaining, Further Readings
Don Bordenkircher, Kentucky State Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.
Paul Lewis Hayes
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
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Date of Decision
18 January 1978
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.
- 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).
Kapsch, Stefan J. "Plea Bargaining." The Guide to American Law: Everyone's Legal Encyclopedia. Minneapolis, MN: West, 1998.
- 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