shawn blaisdell period 1 1/19/09. presented: april 17 th 1995 decided upon: june 14 th 1995 witte...

Shawn BlaisdellPeriod 11/19/09

Presented: April 17th 1995Decided Upon: June 14th 1995

Witte pleaded guilty to a federal marijuana charge

Witte was indicted for conspiring and attempting to import cocaine

Witte moved to dismiss the charges

He argued that he had already been punished for the offenses Cocaine was

considered as "relevant conduct" at his marijuana sentencing

375 pounds of marijuana

seized 591 kilograms

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Double Jeopardy Clause provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

This prohibits successive prosecution or multiple punishment for "the same offence”

Does a court violate that clause by convicting and sentencing a defendant for a crime when the conduct underlying that offense has been considered in determining the defendant's sentence for a previous conviction?

Court Ruling

OpinionsDissenting Concurring

Justice Stevens

Justice Stevens disagreed because, he claims, "under the Guidelines, an offense that is included as `relevant conduct' does not relate to the character of the offender (which is reflected instead by criminal history), but rather measures only the character of the offense."

Justice O’Connor

A defendant has not been "punished" any more for double jeopardy purposes when relevant conduct is included in the calculation of his offense level.

Ramifications the use of

relevant conduct to increase the punishment for a charged offense does not punish the offender for the relevant conduct

A Case Related to this…Williams v. Oklahoma

the uncharged criminal conduct was used to enhance the original sentence

Williams robbed, kidnapped, and murdered someone.

kidnapping and murder are separate and distinct offenses

The convicted criminal made no claim of double jeopardy

Personal Response I personally believe that Witte was punished for

the amount of drugs in both charges and that his sentencing was correct and that it did not violate the double jeopardy clause.