United States v. Bernardino Ribota, 792 F.3d 837

In 2002 Ribota was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of firearms; a $50,000 bond was posted and he was released under conditions to report to Pretrial Services and remain within the Northern District of Illinois.
Ribota violated those conditions, a bench warrant issued after he failed to appear, and he eluded arrest for over nine years until apprehended in 2012.
In 2013 Ribota moved to suppress evidence from the 2002 search; the prosecutor agreed the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment and the district court granted the suppression and the government then moved to dismiss the drug/firearm indictment.
The day after the suppression ruling, the government charged Ribota with two counts of criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) for willfully failing to report to Pretrial Services and violating travel restrictions.
Ribota moved to dismiss the contempt indictment as prosecutorially vindictive retaliation for his successful suppression motion; the district court denied the motion and Ribota appealed.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding (1) no presumption of vindictiveness applied in the pretrial context and (2) Ribota offered no objective evidence of actual vindictiveness beyond timing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contempt prosecution is unconstitutional vindictiveness	Ribota: prosecution was solely to punish him for winning suppression and dismissing the drug case	Government: prosecutorial charging decisions are discretionary; contempt charge addressed separate criminal conduct and was timely	Court: No presumption of vindictiveness; timing alone insufficient — indictment upheld
Whether a presumption of vindictiveness arises in pretrial charging changes	Ribota: presumption should apply because charge followed successful pretrial motion	Government: presumption is inappropriate pretrial; prosecutor still assessing charges	Court: Presumption does not apply pretrial; only applies in limited retrial/appeal contexts
Whether the contempt charge concerns the same conduct as the suppressed charges	Ribota: implied that contempt was related to original case vindictively	Government: contempt involves distinct conduct (absconding/violating bond conditions)	Court: Contempt was independent conduct; different-charges context undermines presumption
Whether timing of charge alone constitutes objective evidence of vindictiveness	Ribota: charged the day after suppression — suspicious timing	Government: timing was reasonable because defendant would soon be released and contempt related to prolonged absconding	Court: Suspicious timing alone insufficient; no other objective evidence of animus; charge permitted

Goodwin v. United States, 457 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1982) (framework for prosecutorial vindictiveness claims; presumption limited to certain contexts)
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978) (prosecutorial charging discretion and its breadth)
United States v. Scott, 631 F.3d 401 (7th Cir. 2011) (deference to prosecutorial charging decisions)
Williams v. Bartow, 481 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2007) (limits on presumption of vindictiveness and distinction when charges involve different conduct)
United States v. Bullis, 77 F.3d 1553 (7th Cir. 1996) (burden-shifting when presumption or objective evidence of vindictiveness shown)
United States v. Falcon, 347 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2003) (requirement of objective evidence of prosecutorial animus)
United States v. Jarrett, 447 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2006) (prosecutorial discretion and pretrial-charging context)
United States v. Pittman, 642 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2011) (timing alone does not establish vindictiveness)
United States v. Ladeau, 734 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing substitution of charges for same conduct from charges for different conduct)