United States v. Pittman
2011 WL 2333283
7th Cir.2011Background
- Pittman participated in controlled crack cocaine and a gun purchase with an undercover officer in 2008 and was arrested September 17, 2008.
- After arrest, Pittman admitted selling crack daily for years, cooperated, but fled a sting operation with $2,000 buy money, later recaptured.
- Indictment on February 10, 2009 charged six crack distribution counts and one firearm count; Pittman pleaded not guilty to all counts on February 17, 2009.
- On August 4, 2009 Pittman pleaded guilty to one crack distribution count; court warned he could be tried on remaining counts; he admitted to the other crack counts but not the firearm count.
- February 23, 2010 sentencing for the first plea resulted in a 96-month sentence, well below the Guidelines; government announced intent to prosecute the remaining six counts.
- March 29, 2010 Pittman pleaded guilty to the six remaining counts; April 27, 2010 sentencing imposed 120 months concurrent on all seven counts; Pittman challenged vindictive prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in rejecting vindictive prosecution claim | Pittman argues government animus shown by timing and statements | Pittman contends timing and transcript evidence prove vindictiveness | No reversible error; no objective evidence of animus |
| Standard of proof for pretrial vindictive prosecution | Pittman seeks proving pretrial motive based on punishment desire | Government asserts presumption of propriety absent malfeasance | Burden on defendant; timing alone insufficient; presumption of propriety applies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cooper, 461 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2006) (pretrial vindictive prosecution standard; timing not decisive)
- United States v. Segal, 495 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2007) (vindictive prosecution framework; require objective evidence)
- United States v. Falcon, 347 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2003) (timing evidence alone insufficient to show animus)
- United States v. Jarrett, 447 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2006) (pretrial decisions reviewed with de novo legal standards and clear-error factual findings)
- Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (U.S. 2004) (presumption that public officials discharge duties properly)