United States v. Armstrong

1996-05-13

Headline: Racial prosecution claim narrowed: Court limits discovery in allegations that prosecutors singled out Black defendants, requiring proof that similarly situated people of other races were not prosecuted before getting files.

Holding: The Court ruled that defendants alleging race-based selective prosecution must show a credible, threshold showing that similarly situated people of other races were not prosecuted before obtaining discovery, and Rule 16 does not cover such claims.

Real World Impact:

Raises the bar for obtaining discovery in race-based prosecution claims.
Protects prosecutors’ internal files and strategy from broad disclosure without strong evidence.
Makes it harder to compel federal comparisons across cases without specific preliminary proof.

Topics: selective prosecution, racial discrimination in prosecution, criminal discovery, drug prosecutions

Summary

Background

A group of men were indicted on federal crack cocaine and related firearms charges after undercover buys and arrests in Los Angeles. They asked the trial court for discovery or dismissal, saying they were selected for federal prosecution because they are Black. To support that claim they submitted a small study and affidavits showing that 24 closed cases handled by a federal defender in 1991 involved Black defendants. The District Court ordered the Government to produce lists and explanations. When the Government refused, the court dismissed the indictments. The Ninth Circuit first reversed but then, en banc, upheld the dismissal standard the District Court applied.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed what a defendant must show to get discovery on a race-based selective-prosecution claim. The Court held that Rule 16 (the ordinary criminal discovery rule) does not authorize broad discovery for selective-prosecution claims. More importantly, the Court said a defendant must make a demanding, threshold showing that the prosecution had a discriminatory effect and purpose. To show discriminatory effect in a race case, the defendant must present some evidence that similarly situated people of other races were not prosecuted. Because the defendants' study did not identify any non-Black individuals who could have been federally prosecuted but were not, their evidence failed to meet the threshold.

Real world impact

The decision makes it harder for criminal defendants to obtain wide-ranging internal prosecutorial records in race-based selective-prosecution claims without specific preliminary evidence. It preserves broad prosecutorial discretion and limits discovery that would reveal enforcement strategy, while leaving open later appeals on the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the District Judge did not abuse her discretion and stressed harsh crack penalties and racial disparities in federal enforcement, urging closer scrutiny; separate concurring opinions disagreed about how broadly Rule 16 should be read.