# United States v. Armstrong

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 13, 1996 · 517 U.S. 456

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433286

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES v. ARMSTRONG Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 13, 1996
- **Citations:** 517 U.S. 456; 116 S. Ct. 1480; 134 L. Ed. 2d 687; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 3239; 1996 WL 241682
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Souter
- **Judges:** Rehnquist, O'Con-Nor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 1,677 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433286

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the defendant had not presented “some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of” a selective-prosecution claim because he “failed to identify individuals who were not black and could have been prosecuted for the offenses for which respond…
- recognizing that exercises of prosecutorial discretion in criminal cases involve considera- tion of “‘[s]uch factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’…
- recognizing that exercises of prosecutorial discretion in criminal cases involve consideration of “‘[s]uch factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’s …
- explaining that charging decisions are left to the discretion of the prosecutor subject to the limitation that such decisions cannot be based on “ ‘an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification’ ” (quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456…
- concluding that a study which “failed to identify individuals who were not black and could have been prosecuted for the offenses for which respondents were charged, but were not so prosecuted,” did not constitute “evidence tending to show the existence of the essential element…

## Opinion text

Justice Souter,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion, but in its discussion of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 only to the extent of its application to the issue in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433286. Public record. Not legal advice.