United States v. Armstrong - Significance, Selective Prosecution Claims, Judicial Vigilance Necessary In Drug Prosecutions, Related Cases, Further Readings
Christopher Lee Armstrong, et al.
That the government need not provide discovery (relevant documents) in a case of alleged selective prosecution unless the respondent provides a plausible basis for believing that others in similar situations have not been prosecuted.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Drew S. Days III
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Barbara E. O'Connor
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas,
John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
13 May 1996
Upheld the government's claim that African Americans prosecuted for drug offenses failed to provide enough evidence to obtain discovery supporting their claim of selective prosecution. They failed to show that the government chose not to prosecute those in similar situations.
As a result of the Court's decision, the Federal Public Defender's office in Los Angeles said it will look for comparable crack cocaine cases of non-African Americans that were prosecuted in state court, as opposed to federal court. Although United States v. Armstrong was seen as a setback for defense attorneys, they continue to find creative ways to attack crack penalties.
- United States v. Bestfoods - Significance, Don't Drink The Water, Shifting The Burden To The Responsible Parties, A Question Of Parenthood
- U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton - Significance, Arkansas Rejects Career Politicians, The Qualifications Clause And Other Prohibitions, Dissent: An Ironic Ruling
- United States v. Armstrong - Significance
- United States v. Armstrong - Further Readings
- United States v. Armstrong - Selective Prosecution Claims
- United States v. Armstrong - Judicial Vigilance Necessary In Drug Prosecutions
- United States v. Armstrong - Related Cases
- Other Free Encyclopedias