Jordan v. Fisher
135 S. Ct. 2647
SCOTUS2015Background
- Richard Jordan was tried three times (with prosecutor Joe Sam Owen) for capital murder; each time his death sentence was later vacated on legal grounds.
- After the third sentencing, Owen negotiated a plea: Jordan would accept life without parole (LWOP) and waive challenges; the trial court accepted and Jordan was sentenced to LWOP.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court later held such LWOP pleas void where statutory authority was lacking (Lanier), rendering Jordan’s LWOP sentence invalid and prompting resentencing proceedings.
- Mississippi amended its statute to allow LWOP for capital murder; Jordan asked Owen to reinstate the prior LWOP plea (offering to waive retroactivity challenges), but Owen refused and sought the death penalty at a new trial instead.
- Jordan alleged prosecutorial vindictiveness in federal habeas proceedings; the district court denied relief and the Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA). Justice Sotomayor dissented from the denial of certiorari, arguing the Fifth Circuit misapplied COA precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jordan) | Defendant's Argument (Owen/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s decision to seek death after earlier LWOP plea is unconstitutionally vindictive | Owen sought death in retaliation for Jordan’s lawful motion to correct an invalid LWOP sentence; this chills defendants’ rights and warrants presumption or at least an evidentiary hearing | Prosecutor lawfully sought a sentence authorized by statute; following through on prior bargaining positions and declining a new plea is not vindictiveness | COA denied by Fifth Circuit; Sotomayor would grant review, finding the COA denial inconsistent with precedent and that the claim was debatable |
| Whether a presumption of vindictiveness applies when a prosecutor seeks a harsher penalty after plea negotiations | Circumstances (prior plea, subsequent invalidation through no fault of Jordan, request to reinstate identical plea) support at least a debatable claim warranting further review | Fifth Circuit: presumption inapplicable absent new or increased charges beyond the original indictment; Deloney controls | Fifth Circuit applied its Deloney precedent to reject presumption; dissenters argued Deloney distinguishable |
| Proper standard for issuing a COA in habeas cases | Miller-El and Slack require only that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s denial; a divided state court and similar circuits’ decisions show debatability | The Fifth Circuit concluded Jordan failed to show merit and treated COA as requiring proof of claim | Sotomayor: Fifth Circuit misapplied COA standards by extensive merits review and thus should have granted COA |
| Whether Fifth Circuit erred by deciding merits instead of threshold COA inquiry | Jordan: appeals court improperly conducted detailed merits analysis when COA requires limited, threshold review | Fifth Circuit believed merits consideration necessary to conclude no reasonable jurists could debate outcome | Sotomayor: Court contravened Miller-El by adjudicating merits and thus effectively denying appeal without jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (constitutional framework for capital sentencing)
- Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) (mitigating evidence admissibility at sentencing)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974) (prosecution vindictiveness violates due process)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (prosecutor may carry out threats made during plea negotiations)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability is whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (clarifies §2253(c) substantial showing standard for COA)
- Deloney v. Estelle, 713 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1983) (Fifth Circuit precedent limiting vindictiveness claims where charges were not increased)
- Adamson v. Ricketts, 865 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1988) (en banc decision granting habeas relief on a similar vindictiveness theory)
- Lanier v. State, 635 So. 2d 813 (Miss. 1994) (Mississippi Supreme Court invalidating LWOP plea agreements lacking statutory authorization)