No. 25-883

James Thomas Ford v. Florida

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2026-01-23
Status: Pending
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: due-process fourteenth-amendment human-trafficking jury-trial prosecutorial-discretion vindictive-prosecution
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
Latest Conference: N/A
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a prosecutor engage in vindictive prosecution in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where she amends criminal charges one week before trial to bring a life felony on a novel legal theory and announced she was motivated to do so because the defendant exercised his right to a jury trial?

Question Presented (from Petition)

At the final pretrial conference held a week before Petitioner’s trial, the prosecutor announced an ultimatum in open court : if the defendant did not waive his right to a trial by jury and accept an eight year plea deal, the State would amend the charges to include a count for “human trafficking ,” a crime that carries a mandatory life sentence. He rejected the deal and insisted on going to trial. The n, as promised, the prosecutor amended the charges. The human trafficking count was not justified by any new developments in the case. The evidence against him was the same as the day of his arrest some ten months before . And human trafficking seemed like a poor fit for the case because Mr. Ford did not “traffic” any “human.” H is charges arose because he sent text messages to a law enforcement agent posing online as a minor and agreed to pay the nonexistent minor for sexual services. Nevertheless, the jury found him guilty of human trafficking, which the State argued he committed merely by soliciting a minor for prostitution. Q UESTION 1: Does a prosecutor engage in vindictive prosecution in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where she amends the criminal charge s one week before trial to bring a life felony on a novel legal theory that was not justified by any substantive developments in the case and announce d on the record she was motivated to do so because the defendant exercised his right to a jury trial? ii QUESTION 2: Is Florida’s definition for the crime of human trafficking void for vagueness as applied to Mr. Ford where it grants a prosecutor unbridled discretion to transform simple prostitution into a first -degree felony and allows for a conviction even though the c onduct does not involve an actual human or trafficking ?

Docket Entries

2026-02-10
Waiver of Florida of right to respond submitted.
2026-02-10
Waiver of right of respondent Florida to respond filed.
2026-01-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 23, 2026)

Attorneys

Florida
Kaylee Danielle TatmanOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent
Kaylee Danielle TatmanOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent
James Thomas Ford
Andrew Brooks GreenleeAndrew B. Greenlee, P.A., Petitioner
Andrew Brooks GreenleeAndrew B. Greenlee, P.A., Petitioner