Rachael Moore


In the American criminal justice system, prosecutors have an enormous amount of discretion and power. With dockets growing more cramped, prosecutors often use threats of harsher charges and sentences to deter defendants from exercising their right to a jury trial or an appeal. Prosecutors can also wield this power for purely vindictive or retaliatory purposes, as one prosecutor noted when reflecting on his career: Sometimes a public defender or a defense lawyer will just try and bust your ass all the time. Frankly, you end up busting theirs back. You get irritated, but you try not to take it out on the people they represent… Should you penalize him for that? No. Do we? Probably, sometimes. You try not to, but we're human. When prosecutors sidestep their ethical obligations in this way, defendants have one possible remedy: striking the enhanced charges by proving prosecutorial vindictiveness. The Supreme Court of the United States has created two tests for a defendant to prove prosecutorial vindictiveness when a prosecutor increases or enhances charges: the presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness test and the objective evidence test. Missouri courts have adopted both of these tests and applied them to various situations beyond merely an enhancement in charges.

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.