Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Dixon

United States Supreme Court
509 U.S. 688 (1993)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution only if the offenses have identical statutory elements or if one is a lesser included offense of the other, under the 'same-elements' test established in Blockburger v. United States. The 'same-conduct' test from Grady v. Corbin, which had barred prosecutions based on conduct for which a defendant was already prosecuted, is overruled.


Facts:

  • Alvin Dixon was arrested for second-degree murder and released on bond with the condition that he not commit 'any criminal offense.'
  • While awaiting trial, Dixon was arrested and indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
  • Michael Foster's estranged wife, Ana, obtained a Civil Protection Order (CPO) that required Foster not to 'molest, assault, or in any manner threaten or physically abuse' her.
  • On November 6, 1987, and May 21, 1988, Foster assaulted Ana Foster.
  • On three separate dates (November 12, 1987, March 26, 1988, and May 17, 1988), Foster threatened Ana Foster.

Procedural Posture:

  • A District of Columbia trial court found Alvin Dixon guilty of criminal contempt for possessing cocaine in violation of his bail conditions and sentenced him to 180 days in jail.
  • When the government subsequently prosecuted Dixon for the substantive crime of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, the trial court dismissed the indictment on double jeopardy grounds.
  • In a separate case, Michael Foster was found guilty in D.C. Superior Court of criminal contempt for assaulting his estranged wife in violation of a civil protection order (CPO).
  • The U.S. Attorney's Office later indicted Foster for simple assault, assault with intent to kill, and threatening to injure, based on the same conduct involved in the contempt proceeding.
  • The trial court denied Foster's motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds.
  • The District of Columbia Court of Appeals consolidated the government's appeal in Dixon's case and Foster's appeal in his case.
  • The en banc D.C. Court of Appeals, relying on Grady v. Corbin, held that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred both subsequent prosecutions.
  • The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar the prosecution of a defendant for a substantive criminal offense when the defendant has previously been held in criminal contempt of court for violating a court order prohibiting that same conduct?


Opinions:

Majority - Scalia, J.

Yes, in part, and No, in part. The Double Jeopardy Clause bars some of the subsequent prosecutions but not others, depending on whether the offenses are the same under the Blockburger 'same-elements' test. The Court overrules Grady v. Corbin and its 'same-conduct' test, returning to Blockburger as the sole standard for successive prosecutions. Under Blockburger, two offenses are the same if each does not contain an element the other lacks. For Dixon, the contempt offense (violating a release condition by committing a crime) required proof of the underlying drug offense. The drug offense was a lesser-included offense of the contempt, so the subsequent prosecution is barred. The same reasoning bars Foster's prosecution for simple assault (Count I). However, Foster's prosecution for assault with intent to kill (Count V) is not barred because it requires proof of an element—specific intent to kill—not required for the contempt conviction (which required only simple assault), and the contempt required proof of an element—knowledge of the CPO—not required for the substantive assault charge. Likewise, the threat charges (Counts II-IV) are not barred because the substantive offense required proof of a threat to injure, kidnap, or damage property, which was not an element of the contempt charge for violating the CPO's broader ban on threatening 'in any manner.'


Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Rehnquist, C.J.

No. None of the prosecutions are barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. While I agree that Grady v. Corbin should be overruled, the majority misapplies the Blockburger test. The generic crime of contempt of court (willful violation of a known court order) always has different elements from the underlying substantive criminal offense. Therefore, contempt and the substantive crime are never the 'same offense,' and a subsequent prosecution should never be barred.


Concurring in part and dissenting in part - White, J.

Yes. All of the subsequent prosecutions are barred. The Court should not overrule Grady v. Corbin. The majority's application of the Blockburger test is overly technical and ignores the core purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause, which is to protect individuals from the vexation of repeated trials for the same underlying misconduct. All of Foster's alleged criminal acts were encompassed by the contempt proceeding, so all subsequent prosecutions should be barred.


Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Blackmun, J.

No. None of the prosecutions are barred. The purpose of criminal contempt is to vindicate the unique authority of the court, an interest fundamentally different from punishing a substantive crime against the community. Therefore, criminal contempt is never the 'same offense' as the underlying crime for double jeopardy purposes.


Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Souter, J.

Yes. All of the subsequent prosecutions are barred. Grady v. Corbin was correctly decided and should not be overruled. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides broader protection against successive prosecutions than against multiple punishments in a single trial. The protection against repeated trials for the same conduct, established in cases from Nielsen to Grady, bars all the charges against both Dixon and Foster.



Analysis:

This landmark decision significantly narrowed the scope of the Double Jeopardy Clause's protection against successive prosecutions. By overruling the three-year-old precedent of Grady v. Corbin and its 'same-conduct' test, the Court reinstated the more rigid and formalistic Blockburger 'same-elements' test as the sole standard. This shift makes it easier for the government to bring multiple prosecutions arising out of a single criminal episode, provided the statutory definitions of the offenses each contain a unique element. The ruling's impact is particularly felt in complex criminal cases and, as seen here, in the interplay between criminal contempt and substantive offenses, giving prosecutors more latitude to pursue separate charges.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Dixon (1993)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"