Bordenkircher v. Hayes | Definition

Bordenkircher v. Hayes, a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1978, dealt with the issue of whether it is constitutional for a prosecutor to threaten to bring more serious charges against a defendant in an effort to persuade them to plead guilty to a lesser charge. This case has had a significant impact on the criminal justice system, particularly in the context of plea negotiations between prosecutors and defendants.

The case involved a defendant named Paul Lewis Hayes, who was initially charged with forgery for attempting to cash a forged check. The prosecutor offered Hayes a plea deal, which would have allowed him to plead guilty to a lesser charge and face a maximum sentence of five years in prison. However, Hayes rejected the offer, choosing to take his case to trial. In response, the prosecutor followed through on his earlier threat and secured a grand jury indictment for a more serious charge that carried a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

Ultimately, Hayes was convicted on the more serious charge and sentenced to life in prison. He then appealed his conviction, arguing that the prosecutor’s threat to bring more serious charges against him if he did not plead guilty to the lesser charge amounted to coercion and violated his constitutional rights.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices were faced with the question of whether the prosecutor’s actions were constitutional. In a close decision, the Court ruled that it is, in fact, constitutional for a prosecutor to engage in such conduct, as long as the prosecutor has a good faith basis for believing that the additional charges are warranted and is not trying to coerce the defendant into pleading guilty. The Court reasoned that the prosecutor’s conduct must be evaluated in the context of the entire plea negotiation process and that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty must be voluntary and knowing.

The Bordenkircher v. Hayes decision is significant in the criminal justice context for several reasons. First, it established that prosecutors have some latitude in negotiating plea deals with defendants and that defendants may be subject to increased charges if they choose to go to trial rather than accept a plea offer. This gives prosecutors a powerful tool to encourage defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for a more lenient sentence, which can help to expedite the resolution of criminal cases and reduce the burden on the court system.

However, the Court also made it clear that there are limits to the tactics that prosecutors can employ during plea negotiations. Specifically, prosecutors must act in good faith and may not engage in tactics that are designed to coerce a guilty plea. This means that if a prosecutor threatens to bring additional charges against a defendant simply to force them to plead guilty rather than because they genuinely believe that the additional charges are warranted, such conduct could be deemed unconstitutional.

In the years since Bordenkircher v. Hayes was decided, the case has continued to shape the way that plea negotiations are conducted in the United States. While prosecutors have broad discretion to offer plea deals and threaten additional charges, they must also be mindful of the constitutional limits on their conduct. For defendants, the case serves as a reminder that the decision to plead guilty or go to trial can have significant consequences and that they should carefully consider their options and consult with an attorney before making such a decision.

In conclusion, Bordenkircher v. Hayes was a pivotal case that addressed the issue of whether it is constitutional for a prosecutor to threaten to bring more serious charges against a defendant in an effort to persuade them to plead guilty to a lesser charge. The Supreme Court ruled that such conduct is constitutional as long as the prosecutor has a good faith basis for believing that the additional charges are warranted and is not trying to coerce the defendant into pleading guilty. This decision has had a lasting impact on the criminal justice system, establishing guidelines for the negotiation of plea deals between prosecutors and defendants

[ Glossary ]

Last Modified: 05/05/2023