18 Cited authorities

Bordenkircher v. Hayes
434 U.S. 357 (1978) Cited 2,963 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that plea bargaining does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination
United States v. Goodwin
457 U.S. 368 (1982) Cited 1,661 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presumption of vindictiveness did not apply when the Government brought a felony indictment after the defendant refused to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges and demanded a jury trial
United States v. Nobles
422 U.S. 225 (1975) Cited 2,179 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's attempt to make testimonial use of work product materials at criminal trial waived protection
Blackledge v. Perry
417 U.S. 21 (1974) Cited 1,751 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that it violates the Due Process Clause for a prosecutor to increase charges in response to a defendant's exercise of his right to appeal
U.S. v. Sanders
211 F.3d 711 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 192 times
Holding that an “aggressive investigation” in response to a “potential [criminal] violation ... cannot give rise to an inference of impropriety”
In re Martin Marietta Corp.
856 F.2d 619 (4th Cir. 1988) Cited 199 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that disclosure to government waived attorney-client privilege as to future proceedings
U.S. v. Wilson
262 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2001) Cited 134 times
Holding that actual vindictiveness must demonstrate: " the prosecutor acted with genuine animus toward the defendant and the defendant would not have been prosecuted but for that animus."
Kaiser Foundation v. Abbott Labs
552 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 65 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding no sham where defendant “won seven of the seventeen suits” and each of the ten remaining cases “had a plausible argument on which it could have prevailed”
U.S. v. Jarrett
447 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 68 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Jarrett will have a full opportunity to challenge any aspect of his trial, or proceedings after remand
U.S. v. Falcon
347 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 64 times
Holding that a vindictive prosecution claim arises where the government pursues its prosecution in retaliation for the exercise of a protected constitutional right

USA v. Edwards

18 Cited authorities

Holding that plea bargaining does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination

Holding that the presumption of vindictiveness did not apply when the Government brought a felony indictment after the defendant refused to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges and demanded a jury trial

Holding that counsel's attempt to make testimonial use of work product materials at criminal trial waived protection

Holding that it violates the Due Process Clause for a prosecutor to increase charges in response to a defendant's exercise of his right to appeal

Holding that an “aggressive investigation” in response to a “potential [criminal] violation ... cannot give rise to an inference of impropriety”

Holding that disclosure to government waived attorney-client privilege as to future proceedings

Holding that actual vindictiveness must demonstrate: " the prosecutor acted with genuine animus toward the defendant and the defendant would not have been prosecuted but for that animus."

Finding no sham where defendant “won seven of the seventeen suits” and each of the ten remaining cases “had a plausible argument on which it could have prevailed”

Holding that Jarrett will have a full opportunity to challenge any aspect of his trial, or proceedings after remand

Holding that a vindictive prosecution claim arises where the government pursues its prosecution in retaliation for the exercise of a protected constitutional right