United States v. Armstrong explained

Litigants:	United States v. Armstrong
Arguedate:	February 26
Argueyear:	1996
Decidedate:	May 13
Decideyear:	1996
Fullname:	United States v. Armstrong et al.
Usvol:	517
Uspage:	456
Parallelcitations:	116 S. Ct. 1480; 134 L. Ed. 2d 687
Prior:	21 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1994) Rehearing en banc granted, 31 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 1994) On rehearing, 48 F.3d 1508 (9th Cir. 1995) Cert. granted, 516 U.S. 942 (1995)
Holding:	The burden of proof for selective prosecution rests with the defendant, who must show the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races.
Majority:	Rehnquist
Joinmajority:	O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg; Breyer (in part)
Concurrence:	Souter
Concurrence2:	Ginsburg
Concurrence3:	Breyer (in part and in judgment)
Dissent:	Stevens
Lawsapplied:	U.S. Const. amend. V

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Syllabus

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss their indictment for "crack" cocaine and other federal charges, alleging they were selected for prosecution based on their race. The motion was granted by the District Court and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit en banc, which ruled the proof requirements do not compel the defendant to demonstrate the Government has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated.

The Supreme Court held that:

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, which governs discovery in criminal cases, exempts the work product of Government attorneys and agents made in connection with the case's investigation.
Under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the decision whether to prosecute may not be based on an arbitrary classification such as race or religion. Thus a defendant must produce credible evidence that similarly situated defendants of other races could have been prosecuted, but were not, in order to be entitled to discovery.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, 8–1. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the court, and was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer joined the majority opinion in part and also wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justice John P. Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion.