Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Bordenkircher v. Hayes

(1978)

Supreme Court of the United States - 434 U.S. 357

tl;dr:

A prosecutor's credible threat to bring more serious charges if the defendant does not plead guilty to the current charges does not constitute coercion.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Bordenkircher v. Hayes

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Bordenkircher v. Hayes case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingBordenkircher v. Hayes case brief facts & holding

Facts:The defendant was indicted on forgery charges, which carried a...

Holding:The Court held that a prosecutor's threat of using his...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Bordenkircher v. Hayes case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Bordenkircher v. Hayes | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Mr. Justice Stewart
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Court of Appeals held that a prosecutor violates due process of law when his charging decision is influenced by what he hopes to gain during plea bargaining negotiations. The prosecutor acted vindictively in this case by threatening to bring more severe charges after negotiations ended. The District Court's judgment was reversed, and the defendant was ordered to be discharged, except for his confinement under a lawful sentence imposed solely for the crime of uttering a forged instrument. However, the Supreme Court recognizes that the risk of harsher punishment is an inevitable and permissible aspect of plea bargaining, and prohibiting prosecutors from acting forthrightly in their dealings with the defense would only lead to unhealthy subterfuge and undermine the practice of plea bargaining. The prosecutor's conduct did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Dissenting opinion, author: Mr. Justice Blackmun
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting Justices argue that the Court's ruling departs from established principles in previous cases, such as North Carolina v. Pearce and Blackledge v. Perry, which protect against prosecutorial vindictiveness. The author questions why the prosecution is not required to justify their actions on a basis other than discouraging the defendant from a trial. The author suggests that prosecutorial vindictiveness should be protected against by the Due Process Clause, regardless of whether it occurs during a legal attack on a conviction or during plea bargaining. The Court's decision to allow plea bargaining despite vindictiveness may lead prosecutors to bring greater charges initially in every case, which would still harm the accused. The author suggests that it is better to hold the prosecution to the original charge and justify it to the public. The Court of Appeals' judgment should be affirmed.

Dissenting opinion, author: Mr. Justice Powell
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Justice Powell dissents from the majority opinion in a case where a prosecutor offered a plea deal of 5 years to a defendant charged with uttering a forged check, which the defendant rejected. The prosecutor then threatened to seek a new indictment under the Habitual Criminal Act, resulting in a mandatory life sentence due to the defendant's prior convictions. Justice Powell finds fault with the prosecutor's conduct, stating that the resulting sentence is unjust and motivated by a desire to punish the defendant for asserting his constitutional rights. The prosecutor's decision to escalate the charge against the defendant appears to be an abuse of prosecutorial power.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Bordenkircher v. Hayes case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Bordenkircher v. Hayes case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Bordenkircher v. Hayes

Chat for Bordenkircher v. Hayes
brief-753
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.