United States v. Peterson
652 F.3d 979
8th Cir.2011Background
- Ms. Peterson and her ex-husband were indicted on conspiracy to distribute cocaine base; the husband faced 5-year minimum, she faced 10-year minimum.
- Ms. Peterson is African-American; her ex-husband is white; government charged them with different quantity-based conspiracies.
- Peterson moved to dismiss on selective prosecution grounds, alleging race and sex motivated charging.
- District court denied an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion; Peterson was convicted and sentenced to 120 months.
- The government supplemented the record with a proffer letter; the record reflects dispute over meaningful cooperation opportunities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment dismissal claim survives under selective prosecution. | Peterson claims race and sex motivated the charges. | Government charged differently to punish or discriminate. | Claim rejected; no credible evidence of discriminatory motive. |
| Whether Peterson was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on selective prosecution. | Hearing warranted to develop discriminatory intent. | No credible evidence of discriminatory purpose. | No error; hearing properly denied. |
| Whether the evidence supports applying ordinary equal protection standards to meaningful opportunity to cooperate. | Proffer process was discriminatory or unfair. | No framework or credible evidence of discriminatory purpose. | Court applied ordinary equal protection standards; no credible evidence of discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leathers, 354 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2004) (selective prosecution review is a fact-based, clear-error standard)
- United States v. Perry, 152 F.3d 900 (8th Cir.1998) (denial of evidentiary hearing reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Hirsch, 360 F.3d 860 (8th Cir.2004) (heavy evidentiary burden for selective prosecution; similarly situated prong not reached without credible evidence)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (ordinary equal protection standards require discriminatory effect and purposeful discrimination)
- United States v. Alama, 486 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2007) (panel cannot overrule prior en banc decisions without justification)