discussing petitioner’s burden of stating a prima facie case on petition for habeas corpus
How later courts described this case
- discussing petitioner’s burden of stating a prima facie case on petition for habeas corpus
- stating that a petitioner has the burden 15 of stating a prima face case for habeas corpus relief
- noting that the defendant was granted a mistrial "which was necessary to insure the fairness of the proceedings against him"
- presumption of vindictiveness attached when the defendant was charged with a more severe crime after a mistrial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GRODIN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree that in order to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness in circumstances such as this the prosecution must demonstrate that there has been some objective change in circumstances or in the state of the evidence which legitimately influenced the charging process, and that the prosecution here has failed to meet that burden. I therefore concur in the conclusion that defendant is entitled to modification of the judgment.
The majority go further, however, and state that in order to rebut the presumption the prosecution must also show “that the new information could not reasonably have been discovered at the time the prosecution exercised its discretion to bring the original charge.” (Ante, p. 879.) The reason for this requirement is not explained, and I am not convinced it is appropriate as a blanket rule. If, for example, a new witness had appeared at the prosecutor’s door and offered eyewitness testimony that it was defendant who shot the victim, the fact that the prosecution may have been negligent in failing to discover that witness earlier would seem to have little bearing on the question of vindictiveness. Perhaps there are other legitimate justifications for such a rule, but I would prefer to await their consideration until a case comes before us in which that issue is presented.