Longer sentence after appeal
Mary Elizabeth Workman v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Mary Elizabeth Workman argued that the district court violated her constitutional right to fair procedures by increasing her prison sentence and adding nine conditions for supervision after prison, following her successful appeal of her first sentence.
- Who it affects
- The Supreme Court’s order did not resolve whether Workman’s longer sentence and added release rules violated her constitutional rights.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court refused to hear her case (denied review), so it did not decide whether the resentencing violated the Constitution.
Workman claimed the district court acted vindictively when it increased her sentence after she won an appeal.
Question presented
Whether the district court violated Ms. Workman’s due process rights when the court vindictively resentenced her to a longer term of imprisonment with nine additional supervised release conditions after Ms. Workman successfully appealed her initial sentence?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.