Opinion ID: 2827702
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Rutledge

Text: The Supreme Court decided Rutledge v. United States in 1996, four years after we affirmed Kramer’s conviction on direct appeal. 517 U.S. 292 (1996). Defendant Tommy Rutledge was convicted in the Central District of Illinois of one count of violating section 846 and of one count of violatNo. 14-3049 7 ing section 848. Id. at 294. He was sentenced to life without parole on each count. Id. at 295. Rutledge challenged those convictions and sentences, arguing that they punished him twice for the same offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Id. at 296. We affirmed his convictions, finding no double-jeopardy violation. Id. The Supreme Court reversed. Id. at 307. Applying the Blockburger test, the Court determined that the conspiracy defined in section 846 contained the same elements as the CCE offense defined in section 848. Id. at 300. As such, the two statutes constituted the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy: the section 846 conspiracy was a lesser-included offense of the section 848 CCE. Id. The Court then concluded that Congress had not clearly authorized punishment for both offenses. Id. at 302–07. Therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited multiple punishment for sections 846 and 848. Id. at 307.