IEJS > Law > Procedure > Pretrial Proceedings

Leading Cases on Pretrial Proceedings

• UNITED STATES v. GOODWIN, 457 U.S. 368 (1982)
  "A presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness was not warranted in this case, and absent such a presumption no due process violation was established."
   
• BORDENKIRCHER v. HAYES, 434 U.S. 357 (1978)
  "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated when a state prosecutor carries out a threat made during plea negotiations to have the accused reindicted on more serious charges on which he is plainly subject to prosecution if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged."
   
• WAYTE v. UNITED STATES, 470 U.S. 598 (1985)
  "Selective prosecution claims may appropriately be judged according to ordinary equal protection standards. These standards require petitioner to show both that the passive enforcement policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose."
   
• UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, 504 U.S. 36 (1992)
  "A district court may not dismiss an otherwise valid indictment because the Government failed to disclose to the grand jury "substantial exculpatory evidence" in its possession."
   
• WOOD v. GEORGIA, 370 U.S. 375 (1962)
  The grand jury serves as a buffer between the government and the people, and thus is no branch of government per se.
   
• STACK v. BOYLE, 342 U.S. 1 (1951)
  Bail set higher than is necessary to insure attendance at trial is excessive and thus unconstitutional. 
   
• UNITED STATES v. SALERNO, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)
  "The argument that The Bail Reform Act of 1984 violates substantive due process because the detention it authorizes constitutes impermissible punishment before trial is unpersuasive."
   
• BELL v. WOLFISH, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)
  "In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention that implicate only the protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law, the proper inquiry is whether those conditions or restrictions amount to punishment of the detainee."
   
• GERSTEIN v. PUGH, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)
  "The Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest. Accordingly, the Florida procedures challenged here whereby a person arrested without a warrant and charged by information may be jailed or subjected to other restraints pending trial without any opportunity for a probable cause determination are unconstitutional."
   
• COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE v. McLAUGHLIN, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)
  "In order to satisfy Gerstein's promptness requirement, a jurisdiction that chooses to combine probable cause determinations with other pretrial proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest."
   
• BOYKIN v. ALABAMA, 395 U.S. 238 (1969)
  "A waiver of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and applicable to the States by the Fourteenth; of the right to trial by jury; and the right to confront one's accusers - all of which are involved when a guilty plea is entered in a state criminal trial - cannot be presumed from a silent record."
   
• NORTH CAROLINA v. ALFORD, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)
  "A guilty plea that represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to a defendant, especially one represented by competent counsel, is not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment because it was entered to avoid the possibility of the death penalty."
   
• HENDERSON v. MORGAN, 426 U.S. 637 (1976)
  "Since respondent did not receive adequate notice of the offense to which he pleaded guilty, his plea was involuntary and the judgment of conviction was entered without due process of law."

This page available at: