United States v. Dixon
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 2, 1992 Decided June 28, 1993
Full case name	United States v. Alvin Dixon and Michael Foster
Citations	509 U.S. 688 ( more ) 113 S. Ct. 2849; 125 L. Ed. 2d 556; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4405
Case history
Prior	Indictments dismissed, 598 A.2d 724 (D.C. 1991); cert. granted, 503 U.S. 1004 (1992).
Holding
The Double Jeopardy Clause's protection attaches in criminal contempt prosecutions just as in any other criminal case. Grady v. Corbin is overruled, and the Grady "same-conduct" test is abrogated in favor of the Blockburger "same-elements" test. Subsequent prosecutions for the same underlying conduct are not barred by the Clause if each offense contains an element not contained in the other.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White  · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
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 the United States Supreme Court concerning double jeopardy. The case overruled Grady v. Corbin (1990) and revived the traditional Blockburger standard. ^{[1] [2]} The case held that subsequent convictions for offenses that contained the same elements were violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause. ^[3]

Contents

• Background
• Precedent
• Opinion of the Court
• See also
• References
• External links

Background

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.

Precedent

This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (January 2025)

Opinion of the Court

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. Dixon’s case did not apply to the block burger test but instead fell under the rules that the civil tribunals will not revise the proceeding of court materials. ^{[4] [5]}

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 509
• List of United States Supreme Court cases
• Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
• List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court

References

External links

• Text of United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688(1993) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

This article related to a case of the Supreme Court of the United States of the Rehnquist Court is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.

• v
• t
• e