US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

536 U.S. 862

Subscribe to Cases that cite 536 U.S. 862

OCTOBER TERM, 2001

Per Curiam

UNITED STATES v. BASS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1471. Decided June 28, 2002

Claiming that the United States filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty in respondent's capital murder case because of his race, respondent moved to dismiss the notice and, in the alternative, for discovery of information relating to the Government's capital charging practices. The District Court granted his discovery motion and dismissed the notice after the Government said that it would not comply with the discovery order. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Held: The Sixth Circuit's decision is contrary to United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 465, in which this Court held that a defendant seeking discovery on a selective prosecution claim must show some evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. As to evidence of discriminatory effect, a defendant must make a credible showing that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted. Id., at 465, 470. The Sixth Circuit concluded that respondent had made such a showing based on nationwide statistics demonstrating that the Government charges blacks with a death-eligible offense more than twice as often as it charges whites and that it enters into plea bargains more frequently with whites than with blacks. Even assuming that a nationwide showing can satisfy the Armstrong requirement, raw statistics regarding overall charges say nothing about charges brought against similarly situated defendants. And the plea bargain statistics are even less relevant, since respondent declined the plea bargain offered him.

Certiorari granted; 266 F.3d 532, reversed.

PER CURIAM.

A federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Michigan returned a second superseding indictment charging respondent with, inter alia, the intentional firearm killings of two individuals. The United States filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Respondent, who is black, alleged that the Government had determined to seek the death penalty against him because of his race. He moved to dis-


863

miss the death penalty notice and, in the alternative, for discovery of information relating to the Government's capital charging practices. The District Court granted the motion for discovery, and after the Government informed the court that it would not comply with the discovery order, the court dismissed the death penalty notice. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's discovery order. 266 F.3d 532 (2001). We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and now summarily reverse.

In United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 465 (1996), we held that a defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. We need go no further in the present case than consideration of the evidence supporting discriminatory effect. As to that, Armstrong says that the defendant must make a "credible showing" that "similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted." Id., at 465,470. The Sixth Circuit concluded that respondent had made such a showing based on nationwide statistics demonstrating that "[t]he United States charges blacks with a death-eligible offense more than twice as often as it charges whites" and that the United States enters into plea bargains more frequently with whites than it does with blacks. 266 F. 3d, at 538-539 (citing U. S. Dept. of Justice, The Federal Death Penalty System: A Statistical Survey (1988-2000), p. 2 (Sept. 12,2000)).* Even assuming that the Armstrong requirement can be satisfied

*In January 1995, the Department of Justice (DOJ) instituted a policy, known as the death penalty protocol, that required the Attorney General to make the decision whether to seek the death penalty once a defendant had been charged with a capital-eligible offense. See Pet. for Cert. 3 (citing DOJ, United States Attorneys' Manual § 9-10.010 et seq. (Sept. 1997)). The charging decision continued to be made by one of the 93 United States Attorneys throughout the country, but the protocol required that the United States Attorneys submit for review all cases in which they had charged a defendant with a capital-eligible offense. Ibid.


864

Per Curiam

by a nationwide showing (as opposed to a showing regarding the record of the decisionmakers in respondent's case), raw statistics regarding overall charges say nothing about charges brought against similarly situated defendants. And the statistics regarding plea bargains are even less relevant, since respondent was offered a plea bargain but declined it. See Pet. for Cert. 16. Under Armstrong, therefore, because respondent failed to submit relevant evidence that similarly situated persons were treated differently, he was not entitled to discovery.

The Sixth Circuit's decision is contrary to Armstrong and threatens the "performance of a core executive constitutional function." Armstrong, supra, at 465. For that reason, we reverse.

It is so ordered.


865

The next page is purposely numbered 901. The numbers between 864 and 901 were intentionally omitted, in order to make it possible to publish the orders with permanent page numbers, thus making the official citations available upon publication of the preliminary prints of the United States Reports.


866

JUNE 10, 2002

Certiorari Granted-Vacated and Remanded

No. 01-600. MASON, WARDEN V. MITCHELL. C. A. 6th Cir.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Bell v. Cone, 535 U. S. 685 (2002). Reported below: 257 F.3d 554.

Certiorari Dismissed

No. 01-9231. MARBLY V. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ET AL. C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8. Reported below: 22 Fed. Appx. 582.

Miscellaneous Orders

No. 01A930. RODRIGUEZ V. HAZBUN ESCAF. D. C. E. D. Va.

Application for stay, addressed to JUSTICE O'CONNOR and referred to the Court, denied.

No. D-2315. IN RE DISCIPLINE OF REEKS. Thomas Eugene Reeks, of Tucson, Ariz., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

No. D-2316. IN RE DISCIPLINE OF MARSHALL. Douglas M.

Marshall, of Grand Forks, N. D., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

No. D-2317. IN RE DISCIPLINE OF RICHEY. Thomas B.

Richey, of Fresno, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re901








chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com