United States v. Daniel LaDeau
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22313
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- LaDeau was charged with possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(A); zero-to-ten year range.
- After suppression of key evidence, the government obtained a superseding indictment charging conspiracy to receive child pornography with a five- to twenty-year range.
- The suppression order eliminated admissible possession evidence, undermining the initial charge.
- The government then charged conspiracy to receive instead of conspiracy to possess; LaDeau moved to dismiss for prosecutorial vindictiveness.
- The district court found a presumption of vindictiveness based on the suppression motion and did not credit the government’s explanations; it dismissed the superseding indictment, and the government appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s vindictiveness ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a presumption of vindictiveness applies given the pretrial suppression context. | LaDeau contends suppression created a stake; vindictiveness presumed. | Government argues no presumption; Goodwin limits pretrial vindictiveness. | Yes; district court did not abuse in applying presumption. |
| Whether shifting from possession to receipt conspiracy after suppression was reasonable. | LaDeau argues shift was vindictive retaliation. | Government argues shift follows new posture and evidence. | No; shift deemed unreasonable and vindictive. |
| Whether the affidavit in the reconsideration could rebut the presumption. | LaDeau contends affidavit supports nonvindictive rationale. | Government contends affidavit provides objective justification. | Affidavit insufficient to overcome presumption; district court not abused. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bragan v. Poindexter, 249 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 2001) (prosecutorial discretion constrained by due process; burden to rebut presumption)
- Suarez v. United States, 263 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2001) (presumption of vindictiveness when realistic likelihood of vindictiveness exists)
- Andrews v. United States, 633 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1980 (en banc)) (realistic likelihood standard; presumption of vindictiveness applies in narrow pretrial contexts)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 25 (1974) (presumption of vindictiveness when prosecutorial retaliation follows exercise of rights)
- Goodwin v. United States, 457 U.S. 368 (1982) (pretrial caution on presuming vindictiveness; context-dependent)
- Moon v. United States, 513 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2008) (abatement of abuse-of-discretion review where indictment timing involved multiple indictments)
- Eddy v. United States, 737 F.2d 564 (6th Cir. 1984) (vindictiveness when prosecution restarts after suppression)
- United States v. Poole, 407 F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2005) (pretrial burden and vindictiveness considerations)