THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, February 16, 1995 TAG: 9502160373
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B6 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Short : 42 lines
A state prosecutor did not violate the due process rights of a defendant by subjecting him to harsher federal prosecution for refusing to cooperate with police, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard B. Kellam of Norfolk.
Kellam had dismissed an indictment charging Nathaniel Williams with two counts of distributing crack cocaine in Virginia Beach. Williams was indicted by a federal grand jury after refusing a plea-bargain offer by prosecutor Michael Cummings.
The prosecutor demanded that Williams plead guilty to state charges and cooperate with police in an undercover drug operation - or face federal prosecution, which would subject Williams to a more severe sentence.
Williams turned down the deal, saying he feared for his safety.
After the federal grand jury indicted Williams, he asked Kellam to dismiss the indictment on grounds of vindictive prosecution. Kellam agreed, saying a defendant has the right to enter an unconditional guilty plea.
The appeals court said that when a defendant wins an appeal, a prosecutor cannot retaliate by reindicting him on more severe charges.
``In the pretrial setting, however, the Supreme Court has allowed prosecutors to threaten criminal defendants with harsher prosecution during plea negotiations and to carry out those threats if the defendants refuse to accept the prosecution's plea offers,'' Judge Donald S. Russell wrote.
``A prosecutor's threats to seek a harsher indictment are constitutionally legitimate even though the prosecutor's goal in making those threats is to convince the defendant to waive his right to plead not guilty.'' by CNB