| United States v. Dixon | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 2, 1992 Decided June 28, 1993 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Alvin Dixon and Michael Foster |
| Citations | 509U.S.688 (more) 113 S. Ct. 2849; 125L. Ed. 2d 556; 1993U.S. LEXIS 4405 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Indictments dismissed, 598A.2d724 (D.C. 1991);cert. granted,503U.S. 1004 (1992). |
| Holding | |
| |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia (Parts I, II and IV), joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Plurality | Scalia (Parts III and V), joined by Kennedy |
| Concur/dissent | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | White, joined by Stevens; Souter (part I) |
| Concur/dissent | Blackmun |
| Concur/dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V;Double Jeopardy Clause | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Grady v. Corbin (1990) | |
United States v. Dixon,509 U.S. 688 (1993), was a decision of theUnited States Supreme Court concerningdouble jeopardy. The case overruledGrady v. Corbin (1990) and revived the traditionalBlockburger standard.[1][2] The case held that subsequent convictions for offenses that contained the same elements were violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause.[3]
Alvin Dixon was arrested for murder in the District of Columbia and released on bail, on the condition that he not commit any criminal offense, or he would be held in contempt of court. While awaiting trial, Dixon was arrested and indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to 180 days in jail. Dixon moved to dismiss this indictment on double jeopardy grounds because he argued that the prosecution was secondary to his first offense.
Michael Foster's wife obtained a civil protection order against him due to domestic attacks. The order required that he not molest, assault, or in any manner threaten or physically abuse her. Later, his wife sought to have him held in contempt for violation of that order. Foster also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that his double jeopardy rights were violated because his contempt charges arose out of the original prosecution.
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This section is empty. You can help byadding to it.(January 2025) |
The court concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited the subsequent prosecutions of Foster for assault and Dixon for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, but did not prohibit the subsequent prosecutions of Foster for threatening to injure another or for assault with intent to kill.
 | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theRehnquist Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |