Citation network
Garrett Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 03, 1985
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Garrett v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 471 U.S. 773 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Garrett v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 471 U.S. 773 (1985) Garrett v. UnitedSearch
-
offense of the CCE offense. Brown v. OhioSearch
-
was returned, and evidence of the importation in Washington could be used to show one of the predicate offenses. Diaz v. UnitedSearch
-
is a lesser included offense of the CCE charge, and, therefore, that the CCE prosecution is barred under Brown v. OhioSearch
-
I This case presents two of the three aspects of the Double Jeopardy Clause identified in North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
first, notwithstanding Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
predicates in the way that conspiracy is a distinct offense from the completed object of the conspiracy. Cf. Pinkerton v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
States, 328 U. S. 640 , 328 U. S. 643 (1946). Second, applying the test of Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
is the same, Garrett argues, as the relationship between the joyriding and auto theft statutes involved in Brown v. OhioSearch
-
after conviction of one of the two provisions, and that would end the double jeopardy analysis. Cf. Albrecht v. UnitedSearch
-
not controlling when the legislative intent is clear from the face of the statute or the legislative history. Missouri v. HunterSearch
-
Albernaz v. UnitedSearch
-
Whalen v. UnitedSearch
-
for the CCE charge in Florida. He relies on Brown v. OhioSearch
-
charge placed him twice in jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Brown v. OhioSearch
-
from a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction, they must be tried in a single proceeding. Brown v. OhioSearch
-
in our view, Garrett's claim of double jeopardy would still not be sustainable. Page 471 U. S. 791 In Diaz v. UnitedSearch
-
in order to attempt to obtain the life imprisonment penalty available under the CCE provision. In Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
of the predicate offense and the CCE offense that the CCE offense can be likened to a recidivist statute. See Graham v. WestSearch
-
Virginia, 224 U. S. 616 (1912), and Oyler v. BoleSearch
-
This conclusion is admittedly in tension with certain language in prior opinions of the Court. E.g., Brown v. OhioSearch
-
of judgments in criminal prosecutions and to protect the defendant from prosecutorial overreaching. See, e.g., Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
U. S. 117 , 449 U. S. 128 , 449 U. S. 136 (1980). In Green v. UnitedSearch
-
but instead must accommodate the societal interest in prosecuting and convicting those who violate the law. Tibbs v. FloridaSearch
-
United States v. ScottSearch
-
his culpability conclusively resolved in one proceeding. Tibbs, supra, at 457 U. S. 41 -44. Brown v. OhioSearch
-
that support this conclusion, however, are no more absolute than those involved in other contexts. See Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
by the public interest in law enforcement and the absence of prosecutorial overreaching. For example, in Diaz v. UnitedSearch
-
offense where the latter Page 471 U. S. 797 depends on facts occurring after the first trial. Dicta in Brown v. OhioSearch
-
could not have discovered earlier through due diligence. 432 U.S. at 432 U. S. 169 , n. 7. See also Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, at 432 U. S. 151 -152. Application of the rule of Brown v. OhioSearch
-
is also affected by the actions of the defendant himself. In Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
to lesser included offenses, double jeopardy does not prevent further prosecution on remaining, greater offenses. Ohio v. JohnsonSearch
-
Thus, this case falls somewhere between Diaz and Brown v. OhioSearch
-
is clearly such a crime. In Brown v. OhioSearch
-
Page 471 U. S. 804 not occurred or have not been discovered despite the exercise of due diligence. See Diaz v. UnitedSearch
-
It is also clear that the exception identified in Brown v. OhioSearch
-
that I can discern. Further, although I did not subscribe to the analysis in the plurality opinion in Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
Double Jeopardy Clause is the prohibition against multiple prosecutions for the 'the same offense.' See United States v. WilsonSearch
-
Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Garrett v. UnitedSearch
-
Brown v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial