United States v. Jenkins
504 F.3d 694, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 22677, 2007 WL 2769697 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness, which violates due process, arises when the government brings new charges against a defendant immediately after the defendant exercises their constitutional right to testify in a separate trial, particularly when the government already possessed sufficient evidence to bring those charges beforehand.
Facts:
- On October 19, 2004, Sharon Ann Jenkins was apprehended at the U.S. border driving a car with two undocumented aliens in the trunk; she admitted to being paid $400 for the act.
- The next day, October 20, 2004, Jenkins was apprehended again in a different vehicle containing two more undocumented aliens; she admitted to being paid $100.
- The government did not press charges against Jenkins for either of the October incidents at that time.
- On January 9, 2005, Jenkins was apprehended as a passenger in a van containing marijuana.
- During questioning for the January incident, Jenkins stated she believed she was smuggling an undocumented alien, not drugs, and admitted to the two prior alien smuggling attempts in October.
- At her trial for the marijuana charge, Jenkins testified in her own defense, repeating that she believed she was smuggling aliens and describing the prior incidents.
- While the jury for the marijuana trial was deliberating, the government filed a criminal complaint against Jenkins for the October alien smuggling incidents.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Jenkins in federal district court with importation of marijuana.
- After Jenkins testified at her marijuana trial, the government filed a new complaint charging her with alien smuggling.
- A grand jury subsequently indicted Jenkins on the alien smuggling charges.
- Jenkins filed a motion in the district court to dismiss the alien smuggling indictment on the ground of vindictive prosecution.
- The district court granted Jenkins’s motion and dismissed the indictment.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 government's filing of alien smuggling charges against a defendant immediately after she testified about those prior acts in her defense during a separate marijuana importation trial create a presumption of vindictive prosecution that violates the Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Canby
Yes. The government's conduct creates a presumption of vindictive prosecution because the timing of the new charges, filed only after Jenkins exercised her right to testify, raises a reasonable likelihood of a retaliatory motive. The government had ample evidence to prosecute the alien smuggling charges well before Jenkins's trial testimony, including her three prior admissions to law enforcement. The government’s justification—that Jenkins’s in-court testimony greatly strengthened its case—is unpersuasive because the existing evidence was already sufficient to proceed, making the case 'open and shut.' Allowing such conduct would create a chilling effect, discouraging future defendants from exercising their right to testify. A presumption of vindictiveness can arise even when the new charges are factually unrelated to the original ones if the defendant's exercise of a right directly triggers the new filing.
Dissenting - Judge Conlon
No. The filing of charges did not create an appearance of vindictiveness, and even if it did, the government successfully rebutted it. The prosecutor’s decision was based on the content of Jenkins's testimony—a detailed, in-court confession under oath—not the mere act of her testifying. An in-court confession is significantly stronger and more valuable evidence than out-of-court statements to officers, which can be challenged. This new, powerful evidence constituted an 'intervening circumstance' that legitimately justified the prosecutor's decision to file charges. The majority's holding improperly second-guesses the broad discretion prosecutors have in deciding when and whether to bring charges based on the quality and strength of the available evidence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the prophylactic purpose of the vindictive prosecution doctrine, prioritizing the protection of a defendant's constitutional rights over prosecutorial discretion in circumstances that suggest retaliation. The holding clarifies that a presumption of vindictiveness can arise even from factually unrelated charges if there is a direct causal link between the defendant's exercise of a right in one case and the filing of another. It serves as a warning to prosecutors that delaying charges for which they already have a sufficient case until after a defendant testifies about the underlying acts in a separate trial risks dismissal on due process grounds, regardless of whether the testimony strengthens the case.
