United States v. Dixon

Background

Alvin Dixon was released on bail with a court condition that he not commit "any criminal offense." While awaiting trial for murder, he was held in criminal contempt after a judge found he had possessed cocaine with intent to distribute and was jailed for 180 days; he was later indicted on the drug charge. Michael Foster consented to a civil protection order that barred him from assaulting or threatening his estranged wife. A family court found him guilty of several contempts for assaults and some threats and sentenced him to jail; the United States later indicted him on assault, threats, and assault-with-intent-to-kill counts.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Constitution's rule against being tried twice for the same offense prevents a criminal prosecution that follows a contempt conviction for violating a court order that incorporated the criminal prohibition. Using the traditional "same-elements" (Blockburger) test, the Court held that when the contempt conviction and the later criminal charge require proof of the same essential elements, the later prosecution is barred (as in Dixon and Foster's simple assault count). The Court found other counts required different elements and therefore were not barred. The majority also overruled a recent decision that had applied a broader "same-conduct" test.

Real world impact

People held in criminal contempt for violating court orders that duplicate a statutory crime may be protected from later prosecution when the two offenses are legally the same. But prosecutions will proceed when the criminal charge requires different proof. Overruling the broader test narrows the situations in which defendants can claim double jeopardy.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separate opinions. Some agreed only in part; others argued Grady should remain and that the Double Jeopardy Clause should bar more or all of the later prosecutions. The Court split on the proper legal test and scope of protection.