## Facts

- A Richmond deputy sheriff stopped Chad Ramon Jones after observing him drive the wrong way on a one-way street.
- The officer determined Jones’s driver’s license was suspended.
- A search of the vehicle after the stop revealed marijuana, a 9mm pistol, and drug paraphernalia.
- Jones was first slated for prosecution in Virginia state court for the same underlying conduct.
- The case was referred for federal prosecution under “Project Exile,” a cooperative federal–state initiative in Richmond intended to reduce violent crime by federally prosecuting firearm-related crimes when possible.
- A federal grand jury returned a four-count indictment based on the same conduct that had been the subject of the contemplated state prosecution.
- Jones, an African-American, moved pretrial to dismiss the federal indictment, alleging the federal forum was chosen to reduce the number of African-Americans in the jury pool.

## Issues

1. Whether selecting federal prosecution under Project Exile, rather than state prosecution, constituted unconstitutional selective prosecution in violation of equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment due to alleged race-based forum selection.
2. Whether proceeding in federal court impermissibly manipulated jury composition by avoiding a state jury pool with a higher proportion of African-American jurors.

## Decision

- The court denied Jones’s motion to dismiss the indictment.
- The court held Jones failed to make the required showing for a selective-prosecution claim, including discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent.
- The court rejected the argument that the Constitution entitles a defendant to a particular forum or to a jury pool with a desired racial composition where the chosen forum has jurisdiction and uses lawful jury selection procedures.

## Legal Principles

- A selective-prosecution claim requires proof of both discriminatory effect (different treatment of similarly situated persons) and discriminatory intent (a decision motivated by an impermissible classification such as race).
- Where federal and state authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, prosecutorial discretion permits federal prosecution of conduct also chargeable under state law, absent unconstitutional motivation.
- The fair-cross-section requirement does not create a right to choose the prosecuting forum based on the comparative racial composition of potential jury pools; a defendant must show unlawful discrimination in the jury selection process or unconstitutional prosecutorial decision-making, not merely demographic differences between forums.

## Conclusion

The court upheld federal prosecution under Project Exile and denied dismissal because Jones did not provide sufficient evidence that the decision to prosecute in federal court was motivated by race or that it unlawfully altered his jury rights; demographic differences between federal and state jury pools, without proof of discriminatory effect and intent, were not enough to establish a constitutional violation.


United States v. Jones, 36 F. Supp. 2d 304 (E.D. Va. 1999)