31:
367:
impose that type of punishment on defendants who successfully exercise their constitutional rights. The Court further extended this protection to a defendant who prevails on statutory (rather than constitutional) claims, to ensure that a defendant who exercises his right of appeal "be free and unfettered.â Thus, vindictiveness, or choosing to punish a defendant who exercises his right to appeal, must not be considered when a judge imposes a new sentence.
386:, concurred in the judgment and agreed with the majority's due process analysis. Both Justices, however, went further than the majority. They would have held that âif for any reason a new trial is granted and there is a conviction a second time, the second penalty imposed cannot exceed the first penalty, if respect is had for the guarantee against double jeopardy.â
408:
sentence. While he argued that impermissible motivations for increased trial sentences (such as in Rice's case) are unconstitutional, he disagreed that it is the role of the Courtâinstead of the legislatureâto impose a specific remedy of requiring a judge to affirmatively state his reasoning for justifying an increased sentence.
358:
have âthrown new light upon the defendant's âlife, health, habits, conduct, and mental and moral propensities.ââ As a result, the Court did not impose âan absolute constitutional barâ to an increased sentence upon retrial, since these considerations may properly justify an increased sentence. Nonetheless, the Court held that the
442:. As a result, current jurisprudence interprets Pearce's holding to provide a defendant with a ârebuttable presumption of vindictiveness.â This doctrine of a rebuttable presumption of vindictiveness, absent an affirmative indication of objective facts justifying an increased sentence, is referred to as the Pearce Principle.
370:
To ensure that vindictiveness does not play a role in sentencing, the Court required for a judge to affirmatively state his justification for an increased sentence. A trial judge must base his reasoning on âobjective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring
110:(5th Cir. 1968), affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 258, 21 L.Ed.2d 258. In the second case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh, ordered the prisoner's release and appeal was taken. The United States Court of Appeals, 397
366:
imposes limits on the trial judge's ability to increase sentences. The Court reasoned that it would be a âflagrant violationâ of due process for a state court to follow a policy of increasing sentences upon every reconvicted defendant, and it would be a violation of due process for trial courts to
357:
precludes a trial judge from increasing a sentence upon reconviction. Since a trial judge is not âconstitutionally precludedâŚfrom imposing a new sentence, whether greater or less than the original sentence,â the trial court is free to consider issues that have emerged after the original trial that
326:
delivered the majority opinion for the Court, answering the question âhen at the behest of the defendant a criminal conviction has been set aside and a new trial ordered, to what extent does the
Constitution limit the imposition of a harsher sentence after conviction upon retrial?â The Court broke
280:
case that forbids judicial âvindictivenessâ from playing a role in the increased sentence a defendant receives after a new trial. In sum, due process requires that a defendant be âfree of apprehensionâ of judicial vindictiveness. Time served for a new conviction of the same offense must be âfully
310:
The second respondent, Rice, pleaded guilty to four counts of second-degree burglary, and he was sentenced to ten years in prison. The judgment was set aside in a state court proceeding two and a half years later, after Rice successfully argued his constitutional right to counsel was violated at
297:
in their decision. The first respondent, Pearce, was convicted of assault with intent to rape and sentenced to twelve to fifteen years. His first conviction was reversed in a state court proceeding because his involuntary confession was improperly admitted in his first trial. On retrial, he was
407:
Rice for appealing his original trial decision. However, Justice Black disagreed that any evidence indicated that Pearce's sentence was motivated by vindictiveness. He was particularly concerned with the majority's requirement that a trial judge affirmatively state the reasons for an increased
371:
after the time of the original sentencing proceeding.â This âfactual dataâ must be made part of the record so it can be reviewed on appeal. Because both of the state courts for Rice and Pearce imposed more severe sentences without providing such affirmative justifications.
298:
convicted and sentenced to an eight-year prison term. Both the state and Pearce agreed that this sentence, combined with his previous time served, amounted to a harsher sentence than he had originally received. His conviction was affirmed on appeal to the
527:, 395 U.S. at 741 (âhe Court does not explain why the particular detailed procedure spelled out in this case is constitutionally required, while other remedial devices are not. This is pure legislation if there ever was legislation.â).
306:
both declared that Pearce's new sentence was âunconstitutional and void.â When the state failed to resentence him after sixty days, the federal court ordered Pearce to be released. At this point, the
Supreme Court granted certiorari.
311:
trial. He was retried in
Alabama state court, convicted, and sentenced to twenty five years in prison, with no credit given for the time he had already served. In his habeas corpus petition, the federal district court and
1464:
327:
this question into two issues: (i) whether the
Constitution requires credit for time already served and (ii) whether the Constitution limits imposing a more severe sentence upon retrial.
363:
354:
259:
623:
579:
540:
493:
72:
1469:
414:
agreed with the majority's reasoning as it applied to the
Fourteenth Amendment. However, he dissented as to the reasoning of the Court because he disagreed with the holding in
691:
346:
335:
263:
598:
Robert M. Strasnick (1997). "Judicial
Vindictiveness in the Resentencing of Criminal Defendants: Massachusetts Expands the Pearce Principle as a Matter of Common Law".
392:
concurred in part, but he would have allowed an increased sentence based on any âobjective, identifiable data not known to the trial judgeâ at the original sentencing.
682:
694:
1459:
141:
Trial court denied respondents' due process right by imposing a heavier sentence to punish respondent for having his original conviction set aside.
1474:
303:
281:
credited,â and a trial judge seeking to impose a greater sentence on retrial must affirmatively state the reasons for imposing such a sentence.
312:
1163:
675:
341:
Turning to the second issue regarding the constitutional limits of increased sentences upon reconviction, the Court found that neither the
330:
The Court quickly dealt with the first issue, and it determined that time previously served must be credited upon resentencing because the
35:
708:
315:
declared that the increased sentence was a violation of due process and âunconstitutional.â The
Supreme Court granted certiorari.
1312:
908:
176:
1088:
668:
411:
299:
975:
1112:
1045:
809:
852:
290:
277:
103:(M.D. Ala. 1967), granted writ and the warden appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 396
1400:
1328:
737:
379:
1212:
876:
753:
383:
403:
agreed with the majority that Rice's increased sentence indicated that the state trial judge was motivated by a
1320:
1128:
100:
1368:
1224:
1360:
1120:
1064:
1010:
943:
935:
868:
769:
660:
350:
860:
643:
302:. Pearce then brought a habeas proceeding in federal court, and the federal district court as well as the
114:
107:
1344:
1288:
994:
967:
959:
892:
833:
825:
790:
419:
342:
331:
323:
184:
1392:
1264:
1232:
1104:
1002:
721:
627:
583:
544:
497:
64:
1248:
404:
1155:
1026:
1384:
1352:
1304:
1296:
1256:
1072:
916:
389:
1336:
1272:
1240:
1187:
1171:
761:
400:
359:
172:
117:(4th Cir. 1968), affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 932, 89 S.Ct. 292, 21 L.Ed.2d 268.
1376:
1080:
1018:
900:
200:
1424:
1280:
1147:
1096:
96:
In the first case, the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, 274
586:
1416:
951:
884:
817:
1408:
745:
634:
547:
500:
188:
1453:
1432:
729:
294:
67:
196:
156:
422:
of the Fifth
Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
164:
79:
97:
652:
54:
State of North
Carolina et al. v. Clifton A. Pearce v. William S. Rice
111:
104:
1210:
788:
706:
664:
30:
561:
Criminal Procedure: Principles, Policies, and Perspectives.
131:, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S. Ct. 2201, 104 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1989)
338:
prohibits âmultiple punishmentsâ for the same offense.
1465:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
600:
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement
1139:
1056:
1037:
986:
927:
844:
801:
253:
245:
237:
229:
221:
213:
208:
145:
135:
121:
92:
87:
59:
49:
42:
23:
676:
8:
434:was decided, the Court implicitly overruled
418:, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), which holds that the
1470:United States criminal due process case law
1207:
798:
785:
703:
683:
669:
661:
20:
559:Joshua Dressler & George C. Thomas.
485:
483:
481:
479:
477:
475:
451:
304:Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
515:, 266 N.C. 234, 145 S.E.2d 918 (1966).
473:
471:
469:
467:
465:
463:
461:
459:
457:
455:
313:Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
293:considered two respondentsâ writs for
1164:Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
217:Stewart, joined by Brennan and Warren
18:1969 United States Supreme Court case
7:
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1460:United States Supreme Court cases
630:711 (1969) is available from:
563:St. Paul, MN: West, 4th ed. 2010.
909:Bravo-Fernandez v. United States
29:
412:Justice John Marshall Harlan II
300:Supreme Court of North Carolina
1475:1969 in United States case law
1:
692:United States Fifth Amendment
1113:Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle
1046:Blockburger v. United States
810:Blockburger v. United States
276:, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), is a
853:United States v. Randenbush
291:United States Supreme Court
278:United States Supreme Court
225:Douglas, joined by Marshall
1491:
1401:J. D. B. v. North Carolina
1329:Dickerson v. United States
738:Wong Wing v. United States
653:Oyez (oral argument audio)
380:Justice William O. Douglas
1313:Mitchell v. United States
1219:
1213:Self-Incrimination Clause
1206:
1057:Dual sovereignty doctrine
877:Fong Foo v. United States
802:Meaning of "same offense"
797:
784:
754:United States v. Moreland
716:
702:
430:About twenty years after
396:Concurring and dissenting
384:Justice Thurgood Marshall
258:
150:
140:
28:
1321:United States v. Hubbell
1180:North Carolina v. Pearce
1129:Denezpi v. United States
1089:United States v. Wheeler
620:North Carolina v. Pearce
490:North Carolina v. Pearce
273:North Carolina v. Pearce
43:Argued February 24, 1969
24:North Carolina v. Pearce
1369:Corley v. United States
1361:United States v. Patane
1225:Curcio v. United States
1121:Gamble v. United States
1011:United States v. Dinitz
944:Ludwig v. Massachusetts
936:United States v. Wilson
869:Burton v. United States
770:United States v. Cotton
576:Wasman v. United States
351:Equal Protection Clause
1345:Yarborough v. Alvarado
1065:United States v. Lanza
995:United States v. Perez
976:Smith v. United States
968:United States v. Dixon
960:United States v. Felix
893:Burks v. United States
834:United States v. Dixon
826:United States v. Felix
791:Double Jeopardy Clause
420:Double Jeopardy Clause
343:Double Jeopardy Clause
332:Double Jeopardy Clause
324:Justice Potter Stewart
260:U.S. Const. amend. XIV
185:William J. Brennan Jr.
1393:Berghuis v. Thompkins
1233:Griffin v. California
1105:United States v. Lara
1003:United States v. Jorn
861:Ball v. United States
722:Hurtado v. California
45:Decided June 23, 1969
1289:Doe v. United States
1156:Palko v. Connecticut
1027:Blueford v. Arkansas
364:Fourteenth Amendment
355:Fourteenth Amendment
264:U.S. Const. amend. V
1385:Maryland v. Shatzer
1353:Missouri v. Seibert
1305:McNeil v. Wisconsin
1297:Illinois v. Perkins
1257:Williams v. Florida
1073:Bartkus v. Illinois
1038:Multiple punishment
917:McElrath v. Georgia
644:Library of Congress
390:Justice Byron White
78:89 S. Ct. 2072; 23
1337:Chavez v. Martinez
1273:Edwards v. Arizona
1265:Michigan v. Tucker
1241:Miranda v. Arizona
1188:Benton v. Maryland
1172:Baxstrom v. Herold
762:Beck v. Washington
695:criminal procedure
416:Benton v. Maryland
401:Justice Hugo Black
375:Concurring opinion
360:Due Process Clause
173:William O. Douglas
161:Associate Justices
1447:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1377:Florida v. Powell
1249:Boulden v. Holman
1202:
1201:
1198:
1197:
1081:Waller v. Florida
1019:Oregon v. Kennedy
901:Evans v. Michigan
780:
779:
269:
268:
201:Thurgood Marshall
177:John M. Harlan II
1482:
1425:Salinas v. Texas
1281:Oregon v. Elstad
1208:
1148:Ex parte Bigelow
1097:Heath v. Alabama
928:After conviction
799:
786:
704:
685:
678:
671:
662:
657:
651:
648:
642:
639:
633:
606:
596:
590:
570:
564:
557:
551:
537:Alabama v. Smith
534:
528:
522:
516:
510:
504:
487:
440:Alabama v. Smith
405:desire to punish
319:Majority opinion
146:Court membership
128:Alabama v. Smith
33:
32:
21:
1490:
1489:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1439:
1417:Howes v. Fields
1215:
1194:
1135:
1052:
1033:
982:
952:Grady v. Corbin
923:
885:Ashe v. Swenson
845:After acquittal
840:
818:Grady v. Corbin
793:
776:
712:
698:
689:
655:
649:
646:
640:
637:
631:
615:
610:
609:
597:
593:
571:
567:
558:
554:
535:
531:
523:
519:
513:State v. Pearce
511:
507:
488:
453:
448:
428:
398:
377:
347:Fifth Amendment
336:Fifth Amendment
321:
287:
199:
187:
175:
83:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1488:
1486:
1478:
1477:
1472:
1467:
1462:
1452:
1451:
1445:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1438:
1437:
1429:
1421:
1413:
1409:Bobby v. Dixon
1405:
1397:
1389:
1381:
1373:
1365:
1357:
1349:
1341:
1333:
1325:
1317:
1309:
1301:
1293:
1285:
1277:
1269:
1261:
1253:
1245:
1237:
1229:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1195:
1193:
1192:
1184:
1176:
1168:
1160:
1152:
1143:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1134:
1133:
1125:
1117:
1109:
1101:
1093:
1085:
1077:
1069:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1051:
1050:
1041:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1031:
1023:
1015:
1007:
999:
990:
988:
987:After mistrial
984:
983:
981:
980:
972:
964:
956:
948:
940:
931:
929:
925:
924:
922:
921:
913:
905:
897:
889:
881:
873:
865:
857:
848:
846:
842:
841:
839:
838:
830:
822:
814:
805:
803:
795:
794:
789:
782:
781:
778:
777:
775:
774:
766:
758:
750:
746:Maxwell v. Dow
742:
734:
726:
717:
714:
713:
707:
700:
699:
690:
688:
687:
680:
673:
665:
659:
658:
614:
613:External links
611:
608:
607:
591:
565:
552:
529:
517:
505:
450:
449:
447:
444:
427:
424:
397:
394:
376:
373:
320:
317:
286:
283:
267:
266:
256:
255:
251:
250:
247:
246:Concur/dissent
243:
242:
239:
238:Concur/dissent
235:
234:
231:
227:
226:
223:
219:
218:
215:
211:
210:
206:
205:
204:
203:
189:Potter Stewart
162:
159:
154:
148:
147:
143:
142:
138:
137:
133:
132:
123:
119:
118:
94:
90:
89:
85:
84:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1487:
1476:
1473:
1471:
1468:
1466:
1463:
1461:
1458:
1457:
1455:
1435:
1434:
1433:Vega v. Tekoh
1430:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1246:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1209:
1205:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1059:
1055:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
992:
991:
989:
985:
978:
977:
973:
970:
969:
965:
962:
961:
957:
954:
953:
949:
946:
945:
941:
938:
937:
933:
932:
930:
926:
919:
918:
914:
911:
910:
906:
903:
902:
898:
895:
894:
890:
887:
886:
882:
879:
878:
874:
871:
870:
866:
863:
862:
858:
855:
854:
850:
849:
847:
843:
836:
835:
831:
828:
827:
823:
820:
819:
815:
812:
811:
807:
806:
804:
800:
796:
792:
787:
783:
772:
771:
767:
764:
763:
759:
756:
755:
751:
748:
747:
743:
740:
739:
735:
732:
731:
730:Ex parte Bain
727:
724:
723:
719:
718:
715:
710:
705:
701:
696:
693:
686:
681:
679:
674:
672:
667:
666:
663:
654:
645:
636:
629:
625:
621:
617:
616:
612:
604:
601:
595:
592:
588:
585:
581:
577:
574:
569:
566:
562:
556:
553:
549:
546:
542:
538:
533:
530:
526:
521:
518:
514:
509:
506:
502:
499:
495:
491:
486:
484:
482:
480:
478:
476:
474:
472:
470:
468:
466:
464:
462:
460:
458:
456:
452:
445:
443:
441:
437:
433:
425:
423:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
402:
395:
393:
391:
387:
385:
381:
374:
372:
368:
365:
361:
356:
352:
348:
344:
339:
337:
333:
328:
325:
318:
316:
314:
308:
305:
301:
296:
295:habeas corpus
292:
284:
282:
279:
275:
274:
265:
261:
257:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:Case opinions
207:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:Chief Justice
152:
151:
149:
144:
139:
134:
130:
129:
124:
120:
116:
113:
109:
106:
102:
99:
95:
91:
86:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1431:
1423:
1415:
1407:
1399:
1391:
1383:
1375:
1367:
1359:
1351:
1343:
1335:
1327:
1319:
1311:
1303:
1295:
1287:
1279:
1271:
1263:
1255:
1247:
1239:
1231:
1223:
1186:
1179:
1178:
1170:
1162:
1154:
1146:
1127:
1119:
1111:
1103:
1095:
1087:
1079:
1071:
1063:
1044:
1025:
1017:
1009:
1001:
993:
974:
966:
958:
950:
942:
934:
915:
907:
899:
891:
883:
875:
867:
859:
851:
832:
824:
816:
808:
768:
760:
752:
744:
736:
728:
720:
619:
602:
599:
594:
589: (1984).
575:
572:
568:
560:
555:
550: (1989).
536:
532:
524:
520:
512:
508:
503: (1969).
489:
439:
435:
431:
429:
415:
410:
399:
388:
382:, joined by
378:
369:
340:
329:
322:
309:
288:
272:
271:
270:
254:Laws applied
192:
180:
168:
127:
126:
88:Case history
71:
53:
15:
230:Concurrence
222:Concurrence
197:Byron White
157:Earl Warren
125:limited by
1454:Categories
709:Grand Jury
525:See Pearce
446:References
285:Background
165:Hugo Black
122:Subsequent
426:Aftermath
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
697:case law
618:Text of
587:559, 104
349:nor the
214:Majority
98:F. Supp.
362:of the
353:of the
345:of the
334:of the
136:Holding
1436:(2022)
1428:(2013)
1420:(2012)
1412:(2011)
1404:(2011)
1396:(2010)
1388:(2010)
1380:(2010)
1372:(2009)
1364:(2004)
1356:(2004)
1348:(2004)
1340:(2003)
1332:(2000)
1324:(2000)
1316:(1999)
1308:(1991)
1300:(1990)
1292:(1988)
1284:(1985)
1276:(1981)
1268:(1974)
1260:(1970)
1252:(1969)
1244:(1966)
1236:(1965)
1228:(1957)
1191:(1969)
1183:(1969)
1175:(1966)
1167:(1947)
1159:(1937)
1151:(1885)
1132:(2022)
1124:(2019)
1116:(2016)
1108:(2004)
1100:(1985)
1092:(1978)
1084:(1970)
1076:(1959)
1068:(1922)
1049:(1932)
1030:(2012)
1022:(1982)
1014:(1976)
1006:(1971)
998:(1824)
979:(2023)
971:(1993)
963:(1992)
955:(1990)
947:(1976)
939:(1833)
920:(2024)
912:(2016)
904:(2013)
896:(1978)
888:(1970)
880:(1962)
872:(1906)
864:(1896)
856:(1834)
837:(1993)
829:(1992)
821:(1990)
813:(1932)
773:(2002)
765:(1962)
757:(1922)
749:(1900)
741:(1896)
733:(1887)
725:(1884)
711:Clause
656:
650:
647:
641:
638:
635:Justia
632:
605:: 529.
578:,
539:,
492:,
436:Pearce
432:Pearce
249:Harlan
195:
193:·
191:
183:
181:·
179:
171:
169:·
167:
1140:Other
626:
582:
543:
496:
241:Black
233:White
93:Prior
628:U.S.
584:U.S.
545:U.S.
498:U.S.
289:The
112:F.2d
105:F.2d
73:more
65:U.S.
63:395
624:395
580:468
573:See
548:794
541:490
501:711
494:395
438:in
115:253
108:499
101:116
82:656
68:711
1456::
622:,
603:23
454:^
262:;
684:e
677:t
670:v
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.