Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Dixon

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 28, 1993No. 91-1231Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Justice White,

with whom

Justice Stevens joins, and with whom Justice Souter joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

I am convinced that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for an offense if the defendant already has been held in contempt for its commission. Therefore, I agree with the Court’s conclusion that both Dixon’s prosecution for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and Foster’s prosecution for simple assault were prohibited. In my view, however, Justice Scalia’s opinion gives short shrift to the arguments raised by the United…

2Cases cited53 opinions

  1. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API