Opinion ID: 596393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Garrett v. United States

Text: 27 In Garrett, the Supreme Court held that a prior conviction for the substantive offense of marijuana importation does not pose a double jeopardy bar to a later CCE prosecution that uses the prior conviction as a predicate offense. Garrett, 471 U.S. at 795, 105 S.Ct. at 2419. In reaching this conclusion, the Court announced a three-prong test for determining whether a defendant can be prosecuted for two different statutory crimes that involve the same course of conduct. 28 First, a court must determine whether [Congress] intended that each violation be a separate offense and consequently intended to permit prosecution for both offenses. Id. at 778, 105 S.Ct. at 2411. Looking to the legislative history of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse, Prevention and Control Act of 1970, the Garrett Court concluded that Congress did intend the CCE provision to be a separate criminal offense which was punishable in addition to, and not as a substitute, for the predicate offenses. Id. at 779, 105 S.Ct. at 2412. 29 Second, once it has been determined that Congress intended that both statutes punish the same conduct, a court must ask whether a CCE offense is considered the 'same offense' as one or more of its predicate offenses within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Id. at 786, 105 S.Ct. at 2415. Because it held that the elements necessary to prove a CCE violation are completely different from those necessary to prove the substantive crime of marijuana importation, the Garrett Court held that a double jeopardy violation had not occurred: 30 Quite obviously the CCE offense is not, in any commonsense or literal meaning of the term, the 'same' offense as one of the predicate acts. The CCE offense requires the jury to find that the defendant committed a predicate offense, and in addition that the predicate offense was part of a continuing series of predicate offenses undertaken by the defendant in concert with five or more other persons, that the defendant occupied the position of an organizer or manager, and that the defendant obtained substantial income or resources from the continuing series of violations. 31 Id. at 786, 105 S.Ct. at 2415 (emphasis added). 32 Third, the Garrett Court asked whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars cumulative punishments for the predicate act and the CCE. After addressing policy considerations and the legislative history, the Court held that Congress intended separate punishments for the underlying substantive predicates and for the CCE offense. Id. at 794, 105 S.Ct. at 2419.