 | The examples and perspective in this articledeal primarily with the United States and do not represent aworldwide view of the subject. You mayimprove this article, discuss the issue on thetalk page, orcreate a new article, as appropriate.(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Injurisprudence,selective prosecution is aprocedural defense in whichdefendants argue that they should not be held criminallyliable for breaking thelaw because thecriminal justice systemdiscriminated against them by choosing toprosecute. In claims of selective prosecution, defendants essentially argue that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of different age,race,religion, sex,gender, or political alignment, were engaged in the same illegal acts for which the defendant is being tried yet were not prosecuted, and that the defendant is being prosecutedspecifically because of a bias as to that class.
In theUnited States, this defense is based upon the14th Amendment, which stipulates, "nor shall anystate deny to any person within itsjurisdiction theequal protection of the laws." TheU.S. Supreme Court has defined the term as: "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution."[1] The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.[2] InUnited States v. Armstrong (1996), the Supreme Court ruled theAttorney General andUnited States Attorneys "retain 'broad discretion' to enforce the Nation's criminal laws"[3] and that "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties."[4] Therefore, the defendant must present "clear evidence to the contrary",[4] which demonstrates "the federal prosecutorial policy 'had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.'"[5]
Selective prosecution has been raised as a possible defense in theelection obstruction case of Donald Trump,[6] and as a possible motivation for tax and firearms charges againstHunter Biden.[7]
