Citation network
Rutledge Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 27, 1996
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
- Distinguished
-
Rutledge v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 517 U.S. 292 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Rutledge V. UnitedSearch
-
on each count. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
offenses is whether each of the statutory provisions requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
special assessment was imposed on it. Cf. Ray v. UnitedSearch
-
Even if the assessment were ignored, the force of 293 the Government's argument would be limited by Ball v. UnitedSearch
-
by the federal appellate courts, which have uniformly concluded-with this Court's approval, see, e. g., Morris v. MathewsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Court of Appeals nonetheless affirmed his convictions and sentences. Relying on its earlier decision in United States v. BondSearch
-
F.2d 1233 , 1238 (1988), and our decision in Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
on both counts but permitting only one sentence rather than the concurrent sen- 4 See, e. g., United States v. Rivera-MartinezSearch
-
United States v. NealSearch
-
United States v. PaulinoSearch
-
United States v. PossickSearch
-
United States v. Hernandez-EscarsegaSearch
-
United States v. StallingsSearch
-
United States v. CruzSearch
-
United States v. AndersonSearch
-
Brown v. OhioSearch
-
a legislature does not intend to impose two punishments for that offense. Whalen v. UnitedSearch
-
Ball v. UnitedSearch
-
by applying the rule set forth in Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
typically because one is a lesser included offense of the other. 6 5 United States v. AielloSearch
-
F.2d 125 , 128-129 (CA3 1990), cert. denied, 500 U. S. 948 (1991). 6 See, e. g., Ball v. UnitedSearch
-
Whalen v. UnitedSearch
-
the eeE offense might be satisfied by something less. The Government advanced this precise argument in Jef fers v. UnitedSearch
-
only one Justice. Id., at 158 (White, J., concurring). The position was rejected, to varying degrees, by the v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S., at 147. The Government relied on Iannelli v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d 1253 , 1268 (CA6 1991), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1112, sub nom. Lucas v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. GrazianoSearch
-
F.2d 691 , 699 (CAll 1983). 12 Garrett v. UnitedSearch
-
stands, a second conviction will amount to a second punishment. Cf. Ray v. UnitedSearch
-
assessment as the Government requests, the force of its argument would nonetheless be limited by our decision in Ball v. UnitedSearch
-
conspiracy-like crimes and the substantive offenses upon which they are predicated. See, e. g., United States v. FelixSearch
-
in Garrett, this case involves two conspiracy-like offenses directed at largely identical conduct. Jeffers v. UnitedSearch
-
the defendant's credibility and certainly carries the societal stigma accompanying any criminal conviction. See Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
Sibron v. NewSearch
-
Garrett v. UnitedSearch
-
divided court-a judgment not entitled to precedential weight no matter what reasoning may have supported it. See Neil v. BiggersSearch
-
and 848 indicates that Congress understood them to be directed to similar, rather than separate, evils. Cf. Albernaz v. UnitedSearch
-
That overlap is enough to conclude, absent more, that Congress did not intend to allow punishments for both. 305 v FinallySearch
-
included offenses, for which the courts have already developed rules to avoid the perceived danger. In Tinder v. UnitedSearch
-
Austin v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial