United States v. Jason Eugene Mincy -Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to dismiss a superseding indictment that raised Jason Mincy’s sentencing exposure after he filed a suppression motion, finding no presumptive or actual prosecutorial vindictiveness. The court also declined to address Mincy’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal, leaving that issue for a future § 2255 motion.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness may arise from a prosecutor’s decision to file additional or more serious charges during the pre-trial / plea-bargaining stage (e.g., after a defendant files a suppression motion or declines a plea offer).
Circuit Positions
Pre-trial charging decisions (including superseding indictments after failed plea talks or suppression motions) do NOT trigger a presumption of vindictive prosecution.
A presumption of vindictiveness can arise in the pre-trial context when the government adds more serious charges following a defendant’s exercise of procedural rights.
Conflict Summary
Most circuits hold that the presumption of vindictiveness does NOT apply to pre-trial charging decisions made during plea negotiations, reasoning that such decisions are part of the ordinary give-and-take of criminal litigation. By contrast, the Sixth Circuit has recognized that the presumption can arise pre-trial when the government increases charges after a defendant files certain motions, thereby treating such actions as potentially retaliatory under the Due Process Clause.