In particular, the article examines how State courts have reacted to the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of "prosecutorial vindictiveness" in State cases. Results show that State courts have not used "independent state grounds" as a means of protecting individual rights in this aspect of criminal procedure. State supreme courts are neglected elements in the American political system. While their activities have often been overlooked by both scholars and the public, their work is important; they decide over 10,000 cases each year. In the vast majority of these cases, their rulings are determinative; most litigants do not seek to appeal the decisions and, should they wish to do so, often the United States Supreme Court either lacks jurisdiction or declines to hear the appeals. Because of their importance, State supreme courts have been referred to as "policy-makers in the Federal system." One of the mechanisms through which state supreme courts can have an effect on policy-making is through the use of "judicial federalism" or the "new federalism." Under this doctrine, state courts can be expected to expand citizen rights by invoking "adequate and independent state grounds" present in State constitutions. Notes, references, cases cited