## Facts

- Learley Reed Goodwin was stopped on the Baltimore–Washington Parkway for speeding and driving without a license.
- During the stop, Goodwin allegedly struck a federal park police officer with his car and fled.
- The government initially charged Goodwin in federal magistrate court with misdemeanor and petty offenses arising from the incident.
- During plea discussions, Goodwin expressed some interest in resolving the case on misdemeanor charges but later refused to plead guilty.
- Goodwin requested a jury trial in federal district court on the pending misdemeanor charges.
- After transfer to district court, a prosecutor obtained a felony indictment for assaulting a federal officer based on the same incident.
- A jury convicted Goodwin of the felony and one misdemeanor count.
- Goodwin sought to set aside the verdict, claiming the felony indictment was retaliatory punishment for demanding a jury trial.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness when the government brings more serious charges pretrial after a defendant requests a jury trial, absent proof of actual vindictiveness.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- The Court held that a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness was not warranted on these facts.
- Without a presumption, Goodwin was required to prove actual vindictiveness, and the record supported the district court’s finding that no actual vindictiveness was shown.

## Legal Principles

- A presumption of vindictiveness applies only when there is a reasonable likelihood that increased punishment or charges were imposed to retaliate for the exercise of a legal right.
- Pretrial charging decisions occur in a setting where the prosecutor may reassess evidence and the public interest; charge increases before trial do not ordinarily create a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness.
- The mere fact that a defendant refuses to plead guilty and demands a jury trial is insufficient, by itself, to justify presuming an improper retaliatory motive from a subsequent pretrial increase in charges.
- When no presumption applies, the defendant bears the burden to prove actual prosecutorial vindictiveness.
- Legitimate plea bargaining permits the government to seek or threaten more serious charges so long as the accused remains free to accept or reject an offer.

## Conclusion

The Court held that due process did not justify presuming prosecutorial retaliation from the government’s pretrial decision to add a felony charge after the defendant demanded a jury trial; absent proof of actual vindictiveness, the conviction could stand.


United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982)