10-2132 U.S. v. Pittman

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Vindictive prosecution

It was not vindictive prosecution to bring additional charges against a defendant after the court sentenced him to a blow-guideline sentence on the original charges.

“[T]he mere fact that the government decided to go forward with prosecuting Pittman does not, in and of itself, indicate that the government’s actions were motivated by animus. While it is possible that the government’s decision to prosecute was based on some illicit motive, it is also possible that the decision was based merely on a desire to further the legitimate societal interest in imposing an adequate punishment for the crimes involved. The law in this circuit clearly establishes that, absent evidence establishing malfeasance, we are to accord the government’s pretrial decisions a presumption of propriety. Jarrett, 447 F.3d at 525 (stating that the ‘courts must begin from a presumption that the government has properly exercised its constitutional responsibilities to enforce the nation’s laws’); see also Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 696 (2004) (stating that courts are ordinarily to ‘presume that public officials have properly discharged their official duties’).”

Affirmed.

10-2132 U.S. v. Pittman

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kocoras, J., Cudahy, J.

Full Text