Witte v. United States
515 U.S. 389 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not violated when a defendant is prosecuted for criminal conduct that was previously used as "relevant conduct" to enhance the defendant's sentence for a separate, convicted offense, as the enhanced sentence constitutes punishment only for the offense of conviction.
Facts:
- In 1990, Steven Kurt Witte and co-conspirators arranged with an undercover DEA agent to import large quantities of marijuana from Mexico and cocaine from Guatemala.
- In August 1990, while Witte remained at large, Mexican authorities arrested several of his co-conspirators and seized 591 kilograms of cocaine related to the importation scheme.
- In January 1991, Witte arranged with the same undercover agent to purchase 1,000 pounds of marijuana.
- On February 8, 1991, Witte and an associate were arrested by federal agents after they took possession of a motor home and trailer containing approximately 375 pounds of marijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- In March 1991, a federal grand jury indicted Steven Kurt Witte in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for charges related to the 1991 marijuana transaction.
- Witte pleaded guilty in the trial court to one count of attempting to possess marijuana with intent to distribute.
- During sentencing, the trial court found Witte's uncharged 1990 cocaine conspiracy to be 'relevant conduct' under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which substantially increased his sentencing range.
- The trial court sentenced Witte to 144 months' imprisonment.
- In September 1992, a second grand jury in the same district indicted Witte for conspiring and attempting to import cocaine based on the 1990 activities.
- Witte filed a motion in the trial court to dismiss the second indictment on double jeopardy grounds.
- The District Court granted Witte's motion and dismissed the cocaine indictment.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that using relevant conduct to increase a sentence does not constitute punishment for that conduct.
- Witte, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
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 crime when the conduct underlying that crime has already been considered as "relevant conduct" in determining the defendant's sentence for a prior conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a subsequent prosecution for conduct that was previously considered as relevant conduct at sentencing for a separate offense. A defendant is punished only for the offense of conviction, and the traditional practice of considering a defendant's character and other criminal conduct to determine a sentence within the authorized statutory range does not constitute punishment for that other conduct. Citing Williams v. Oklahoma, the Court reasoned that using related criminal conduct to enhance a sentence is not a second punishment for that conduct but rather a stiffened penalty for the convicted offense, which is aggravated by the related conduct. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines' formalization of this practice does not change the constitutional analysis; it merely channels sentencing discretion that courts have historically possessed. The defendant is punished for the convicted crime, which is deemed more serious because of the accompanying conduct, not for the accompanying conduct itself.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No. The subsequent prosecution is permissible because the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits successive prosecution, not successive punishment. The text of the clause protects against being 'twice put in jeopardy,' which means being prosecuted twice for the same offense. Since Witte was not previously prosecuted for the cocaine offense, this second indictment does not violate the clause's plain meaning. The Court's jurisprudence creating a separate protection against multiple punishments is erroneous and unworkable.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
Yes. The Double Jeopardy Clause should bar the subsequent prosecution because Witte was, in fact, punished for the cocaine offenses when they were used as 'relevant conduct' to drastically increase his sentence for the marijuana conviction. The Sentencing Guidelines draw a sharp distinction between 'criminal history,' which reflects the character of the offender, and 'relevant conduct,' which measures the character of the offense itself. By mandating an increased sentence based on the quantity of cocaine, the Guidelines punished Witte for the cocaine offense as if he had been convicted of it. Because he was already punished for this conduct, the government's attempt to prosecute him for it again is a clear violation of the prohibition against multiple punishments. (Justice Stevens concurred only in the majority's Part III, which explains how the Guidelines themselves work to mitigate duplicative punishment).
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that sentencing enhancements based on uncharged or even acquitted conduct do not trigger double jeopardy protection against a later prosecution for that same conduct. It affirms the broad scope of information a court may consider during sentencing, even under the structured framework of the Sentencing Guidelines. The ruling creates a crucial distinction between being 'punished for' an offense (which requires a conviction) and having a sentence 'enhanced by' other conduct, granting prosecutors significant flexibility in staging prosecutions for complex criminal conspiracies without running afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Unlock the full brief for Witte v. United States