Texas v. McCullough
1986 U.S. LEXIS 7, 475 U.S. 134, 89 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The presumption of judicial vindictiveness, established in North Carolina v. Pearce, does not apply when a defendant receives a higher sentence upon retrial if the trial judge herself granted the motion for a new trial or if different sentencers imposed the two sentences. Even where the presumption applies, it may be rebutted by objective, on-the-record information justifying the increased sentence, including new evidence concerning the original crime that was introduced at the second trial.
Facts:
- Sanford James McCullough was involved in a murder.
- At his first trial for the murder, McCullough elected to be sentenced by the jury.
- The jury found him guilty and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.
- The prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the first trial.
- At McCullough's second trial, two new witnesses who had not previously testified, Carolyn Hollison McCullough and Willie Lee Brown, provided testimony for the state.
- The new testimony indicated that McCullough, rather than his accomplices, had slashed the victim's throat.
- Information was also presented at the second trial revealing that McCullough had been released from prison only four months before committing the murder.
- In the second trial, McCullough elected to have his sentence determined by the judge rather than the jury.
Procedural Posture:
- Sanford James McCullough was convicted of murder by a jury in a Texas District Court (trial court) and sentenced by the jury to 20 years in prison.
- McCullough filed a motion for a new trial with the trial judge, Judge Naomi Harney.
- Judge Harney granted the motion for a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.
- Upon retrial, a jury again found McCullough guilty, and Judge Harney sentenced him to 50 years in prison.
- McCullough (appellant) appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals, feeling bound by North Carolina v. Pearce, reversed the sentence and imposed a 20-year sentence.
- The State of Texas (appellee at the Court of Appeals, now petitioner) sought review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (state's highest criminal court).
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Pearce presumption of vindictiveness applied and that the case should be remanded for resentencing.
- The State of Texas petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a judge from imposing a harsher sentence on a defendant upon retrial when the same judge granted the defendant's motion for a new trial, the defendant elected to be sentenced by the judge in the second trial, and the judge provides on-the-record justifications for the increase based on new evidence presented at the second trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Due Process Clause is not violated because the presumption of judicial vindictiveness does not apply in this context. First, there is no basis to presume vindictiveness because the trial judge herself granted the defendant's motion for a new trial, indicating no animosity or 'motivation to engage in self-vindication.' The defendant's own choice to be sentenced by the judge on retrial further undermines any claim of apprehended retaliation. Second, the presumption is inapplicable because different sentencers (a jury in the first trial, a judge in the second) assessed the sentences, meaning a sentence 'increase' cannot truly be said to have taken place. Even if the presumption were to apply, it was successfully rebutted by the judge’s on-the-record findings, which constituted 'objective information... justifying the increased sentence.' These findings were based on significant new evidence about the crime's brutality and the defendant's recent criminal history, which the Constitution does not require a judge to ignore.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The Due Process Clause is violated because the presumption of vindictiveness should apply and was not properly rebutted. A judge who grants a new trial may still resent the defendant for forcing a retrial, especially when guilt seems obvious, creating the same risk of vindictiveness that Pearce sought to prevent. Furthermore, the majority's decision to allow the presumption to be rebutted by new evidence about the original crime effectively eviscerates the Pearce rule. Prosecutors almost always present a more developed case on retrial, meaning a judge can always point to such 'new' information to justify a harsher sentence. This reintroduces the chilling effect on a defendant's right to appeal that Pearce was designed to eliminate, nullifying its constitutional guarantee.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No. The presumption of vindictiveness established in North Carolina v. Pearce should not apply because the judge who imposed the harsher sentence was the same judge who granted the defendant's motion for a new trial. In this specific circumstance, the possibility of judicial vindictiveness is sufficiently remote. However, if the presumption had applied, the reasons offered by the trial judge were inadequate to rebut it. The majority's alternative holding—that the judge's findings would have overcome the presumption—serves only to distort the core holding of Pearce.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the North Carolina v. Pearce rule, which presumes vindictiveness in harsher resentencing. The Court created two major exceptions: when the same judge grants the new trial, and when different sentencers are involved. More critically, the ruling broadens what constitutes a valid rebuttal to the presumption, allowing reliance on any 'objective information' from the second trial, even if it relates to events preceding the first sentencing. This shifts the legal landscape by giving sentencing judges more discretion and potentially increasing the risks for defendants who successfully challenge their convictions, as they may face a higher sentence based on a more polished prosecution case on retrial.
