United States v. Armstrong
Citation
517 U.S. 456 (1996)
Facts
Robert Armstrong and other Black defendants were charged with crack cocaine offenses in federal court. They moved for discovery — specifically the government’s case files — to support a selective prosecution defense, arguing that the government chose to prosecute them (Black defendants) for crack offenses while declining to prosecute similarly situated white defendants. Their evidence was a study showing that of over 2,000 defendants prosecuted in the district for crack offenses over three years, none were white.
Issue
What showing must a defendant make to obtain discovery in support of a selective prosecution claim based on race?
Holding
The Supreme Court held, 8–1, that defendants must present some evidence — beyond statistical disparity in outcomes — tending to show both (1) that similarly situated defendants of other races could have been prosecuted but were not, and (2) that the decision to prosecute was based on race. The defendants’ statistical evidence was insufficient without evidence of non-prosecution of similarly situated white defendants.
Rule / Doctrine
Selective prosecution threshold: a defendant seeking discovery or dismissal for selective prosecution must show: (1) that the prosecution was declined as to similarly situated individuals of other races, and (2) that the charging decision was motivated by discriminatory intent. Prosecutorial discretion is presumptively constitutional; the threshold for rebutting that presumption is high.
Significance
Armstrong significantly limits selective prosecution claims in practice by requiring defendants to produce comparative evidence of non-prosecution — information they typically cannot access without discovery — creating a near-insurmountable threshold. The case reflects the Court’s strong deference to prosecutorial discretion and constrains equal protection challenges to charging decisions.