## Facts

- Virginia Salaiscooper was arrested in Clark County, Nevada, and charged in Las Vegas Justice Court with misdemeanor solicitation of prostitution.
- Salaiscooper asserted that the Clark County District Attorney had a policy instructing deputy district attorneys not to enter plea negotiations with *female* defendants charged with solicitation of prostitution.
- According to Salaiscooper, the alleged policy meant female defendants could not obtain plea agreements that would allow participation in a diversion class to avoid a solicitation conviction.
- Salaiscooper claimed the asserted no-plea policy amounted to unconstitutional selective prosecution based on sex, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
- After the district court rejected her equal protection challenge, Salaiscooper filed an original petition in the Nevada Supreme Court seeking extraordinary relief (writ of mandamus and/or prohibition) to invalidate the alleged policy and compel equal treatment.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant establishes an Equal Protection selective-prosecution claim by alleging that prosecutors categorically refuse to negotiate pleas with female defendants charged with solicitation of prostitution, without clear evidence of discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court denied Salaiscooper’s petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition.
- The court recognized that selective prosecution may violate equal protection when prosecutorial decisions are based on an impermissible classification, including sex.
- The court held that a selective-prosecution claim requires “clear evidence” of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose.
- Salaiscooper did not make the required showing of discriminatory effect because she failed to present clear evidence that similarly situated individuals (i.e., comparable solicitation defendants outside the challenged classification) were treated more favorably.
- Salaiscooper also failed to present clear evidence of discriminatory purpose—i.e., that any differential treatment was adopted or applied because of sex.
- Because extraordinary writ relief requires a clear legal right to the requested relief and is not granted on an undeveloped factual showing, the petition was denied.

## Legal Principles

- Selective prosecution can violate the Equal Protection Clause when it is based on an unjustifiable standard such as race or sex.
- To prevail on a selective-prosecution claim, a defendant must provide clear evidence of:
  - discriminatory effect (similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted or received materially different treatment), and
  - discriminatory purpose (the charging or bargaining decision was motivated by an intent to discriminate on an impermissible basis).
- Prosecutors have broad discretion in charging and plea bargaining; courts presume prosecutorial decisions are lawful absent clear evidence to the contrary.
- Writs of mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies and are available only when the petitioner shows a clear legal right to relief and the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court denied Salaiscooper’s request for extraordinary writ relief because she did not provide clear evidence that similarly situated defendants were offered plea negotiations or diversion opportunities while she was not, nor did she show that any alleged no-plea policy was motivated by intentional sex-based discrimination as required for an equal protection selective-prosecution claim.


Salaiscooper v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 34 P.3d 509 (2001)