United States v. Dixon

United States v. Dixon

Argued December 2, 1992
Decided June 28, 1993
Full case name United States v. Alvin Dixon and Michael Foster
Citations

509 U.S. 688 (more)

113 S. Ct. 2849; 125 L. Ed. 2d 556; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4405
Prior history On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Holding
The court overruled the same-conduct test from Grady v. Corbin and held that subsequent convictions for offenses that contained the same elements were violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority Scalia
Concurrence Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence White, joined by Stevens, Souter
Concurrence Blackmun
Dissent Blackmun
Dissent Souter, joined by Stevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V;Double Jeopardy Clause

United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning double jeopardy. The case overruled Grady v. Corbin (1990) and revived the traditional Blockburger standard. The case held that subsequent convictions for offenses that contained the same elements were violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Facts

Alvin Dixon was arrested for murder in the District of Columbia and released on bail, on the condition that he not commit any criminal offense, or he would be held in contempt of court. While awaiting trial, Dixon was arrested and indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to 180 days in jail. Dixon moved to dismiss this indictment on double jeopardy grounds because he argued that the prosecution was secondary to his first offense.

Michael Foster's wife obtained a civil protection order against him due to domestic attacks. The order required that he not molest, assault, or in any manner threaten or physically abuse her. Later his wife sought to have him held in contempt for violation of that order. Foster also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that his double jeopardy rights were violated because his contempt charges arose out of the original prosecution.

Opinion of the Court

The court concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited the subsequent prosecutions of Foster for assault and Dixon for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, but did not prohibit the subsequent prosecutions of Foster for threatening to injure another or for assault with intent to kill.

See also

External links

 
After acquittal
  • United States v. Randenbush (1834)
  • Ball v. United States (1896)
  • Burton v. United States (1906)
  • Helvering v. Mitchell (1938)
  • Green v. United States (1957)
  • Fong Foo v. United States (1962)
  • United States v. Tateo (1964)
  • Ashe v. Swenson (1970)
  • Wilson v. United States (1975)
  • Serfass v. United States (1975)
  • United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. (1977)
  • Burks v. United States (1978)
  • Crist v. Bretz (1978)
  • Sanabria v. United States (1978)
  • United States v. Scott (1978)
  • Bullington v. Missouri (1981)
  • Tibbs v. Florida (1982)
  • Arizona v. Rumsey (1984)
  • Poland v. Arizona (1986)
  • Witte v. United States (1995)
  • Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania (2003)
  • Smith v. Massachusetts (2005)
  • Yeager v. United States (2009)
After conviction
After mistrial
Multiple punishment
  • Ex parte Lange (1873)
  • Blockburger v. United States (1932)
  • Whalen v. United States (1980)
  • Missouri v. Hunter (1983)
  • Rutledge v. United States (1996)
Dual sovereignty doctrine
Other
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/2/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.