Court Opinion

ID: 9480952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:03:42.902433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:01.110618
License: Public Domain

JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Pratt’s opinion, upholding the double jeopardy claims of the appellants, but write these additional views to explain why I believe that the Supreme Court’s new double jeopardy jurisprudence, announced in Grady v. Corbin, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), requires this result, a conclusion I concede is not free from doubt.
Grady is arguably distinguishable from the pending case in three respects, none of which persuades me to deem its teachings inapplicable. First, Grady presented the issue of whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred prosecution under one statute after prosecution under a different statute. In the pending case, we are primarily concerned with whether the prior prosecution under count one of the Adamita indictment bars prosecution under count one of the Calderone indictment. Both counts charge violations of the same statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988). I can see no reason why this distinction should render Grady inapplicable, and the Government has not suggested any.
Second, Grady involved successive prosecutions of offenses arising out of a single occurrence, whereas we are concerned with offenses arising out of continuing conduct, i.e., numerous aspects of conduct relied on by the prosecution to show a large conspiracy in Adamita and proposed to be relied on to show a conspiracy of smaller scope in the pending case. The Government contends that it is “far from clear” whether Grady applies to this case. Some reason for doubt on this score is supplied by then Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 105 S.Ct. 2407, 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985). That opinion pointedly distinguishes single occurrence offenses from continuing conduct offenses, indicating, at a minimum, that different double jeopardy principles may be applicable. Id. at 787-90, 105 S.Ct. at 2415-17.
*723The force of this distinction is itself put in doubt by Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Garrett, which emphasized that the double jeopardy claim was being rejected, not because a continuing conduct offense was alleged, but because the defendant’s conduct had in fact continued past the date of the first prosecution. Id. at 797-98, 105 S.Ct. at 2420-22. She pointedly noted that the Court was not deciding whether a double jeopardy claim would be rejected in the absence of such evidence, a circumstance she acknowledged would make the defendant’s claim “more compelling.” Id. at 799, 105 S.Ct. at 2422.
Neither the holding in Garrett, which rejected a double jeopardy claim where criminal conduct continued subsequent to a first prosecution, nor the holding in Grady, which upheld a double jeopardy claim where offenses arose out of a single occurrence, precisely informs us as to the Supreme Court’s current thinking about the instant case, where offenses arise out of continuing conduct but no conduct of the defendants is alleged to have occurred after the first prosecution. In such circumstances, I agree with Judge Pratt that we should be guided by the broad statements in Grady, which is the more recent decision.
Third, it is arguable that Grady, even if applicable to some continuing conduct offenses, does not apply to what the Third Circuit has called “compound-complex crimes,” evidently illustrated by RICO conspiracy offenses. See United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir.1990). The Third Circuit has accepted this distinction, relying on some of the language in Garrett, which involved a continuing criminal enterprise offense, 21 U.S.C. § 848 (1988). I am not certain whether the Third Circuit would regard a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 as a “compound-complex crime,” and, if Grady applies to continuing conduct offenses, I doubt if the double jeopardy analysis should become less rigorous simply because Congress has defined more complicated crimes. Moreover, we have already applied Grady to uphold the double jeopardy claim of a defendant based on a prior prosecution for a RICO conspiracy. See United States v. Russo, 906 F.2d 77 (2d Cir.1990).
Having concluded that Grady is applicable to the pending case, I must then consider how it applies. Grady bars a second prosecution if the prosecutor seeks to establish an “element” of the second crime by proving “conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.” 110 S.Ct. at 2093. In applying Grady, we have to consider how precisely Justice Brennan intended to use the word “element” and what he meant by “conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.”
I think the word “element” was chosen with some care and must be read technically to avoid letting the Grady test become a “same evidence test,” a result that Grady explicitly disclaims. 110 S.Ct. at 2093 n. 12. Grady itself illustrates a precise use of the concept of “element.” Grady was first prosecuted for driving while intoxicated and failing to drive on the right. The subsequent homicide and assault charges required reckless or negligent acts to be established as elements of the subsequent offenses. What Grady holds is that the State may not use Corbin’s conduct in driving while intoxicated or driving across the center line to establish these required elements of the subsequent offenses.1 Grady does not bar the State from introducing in the second trial evidence that Corbin was intoxicated or drove across the center line, but these acts (or that conduct) cannot be the elements of reckless or negligent action *724underlying the homicide and assault charges.
Justice Scalia’s dissent assails the idea that the “element” component of the Grady test is a real limitation. As he points out, “All evidence pertaining to guilt seeks ‘to establish an essential element of [the] offense,’ and should be excluded if it does not have that tendency.” 110 S.Ct. at 2103. He may well be right, but he is in dissent. I think we are obliged to apply Grady in a way that gives the “element” component significance. That means barring the second prosecution only when the conduct previously prosecuted is to be used to “establish” the element of the second crime, which I think must mean “constitute the entirety of” the element. If Grady is read more broadly, that is, if the second prosecution is barred whenever the previously prosecuted conduct is to be used only as evidence of an element of the second offense, then we would almost be applying a “same evidence” test.2 Instead, I think it more likely that the Supreme Court expected Grady to apply only when the conduct prosecuted at the first trial is or may constitute the entirety of an element of the offense at the second trial.
Dowling v. United States, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 668, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990), may be used to illustrate the point. Dowling was first prosecuted for robbery A. After an acquittal, he was prosecuted for robbery B. Evidence of robbery A, indeed, evidence of his conduct in committing robbery A, was offered to prove his identity as the perpetrator of robbery B. The Court ruled that this did not violate the Jeopardy Clause. The Grady dissenters believe that Grady overrules Dowling, 110 S.Ct. at 2095-96 (O’Connor, J., dissenting); id. at 2102 (Scalia, J., with whom Rehnquist, C.J., and Kennedy, J., join, dissenting), but, again, they are dissenters. The Grady majority opinion does not claim to have overruled Dowling and, in the face of the challenge raised in the dissents, should be read, if at all possible, not to overrule Dowling. This can be done by recognizing that in Dowling, the defendant’s conduct in committing robbery A was introduced only as evidence that the defendant committed robbery B, not as the entirety of an element of robbery B.
Consideration must also be given to Justice Brennan’s phrase “conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.” In Grady, that phrase had clear meaning because the prior prosecution was precisely for the two aspects of conduct sought to be used to establish the elements of the subsequent offenses. Corbin was first prosecuted for the offenses of driving while intoxicated and driving across the center line. What is not clear is whether Grady applies only when the conduct, which is sought to be used to establish the entirety of an element in the second prosecution, constitutes the entirety of a previously prosecuted offense, or also when such conduct is only an element of the prior offense or only evidence of an element of the prior offense.
I think it is clear that Grady does not go so far as to preclude proof of conduct that was only evidence of an element of the prior offense. For example, if Corbin had previously been prosecuted not for driving while intoxicated but for robbing a bank, and if in the bank robbery trial the prosecutor had shown that Grady got up the nerve to rob the bank by drinking heavily and thereafter drove to the bank in an intoxicated state, that evidence would not be barred in the negligent homicide trial. The drunken driving would not have been the offense for which he had been prosecuted. A contrary interpretation would resurrect the “same evidence” test.
It is less clear, however, whether the conduct must be the entirety of the offense *725previously prosecuted or may be only the entirety of an element of the prior offense. On this issue, the Government has conceded that the latter view is correct, at least where the element constitutes a distinct offense. In United States v. Russo, supra, the Government conceded that a prosecution for obstruction of justice was barred by a prior prosecution for a RICO conspiracy in which the same obstruction of justice offense had been alleged as a predicate act. Russo had not previously been prosecuted for the obstruction of justice, but that offense was an element of the prior RICO offense. In fact, the matter is slightly more complicated. The obstruction was not the entirety of an element of the previously prosecuted RICO offense; the pertinent element was a pattern of racketeering activity, and the obstruction was one of the predicate acts forming the requisite pattern. But this wrinkle shows only that the conduct must be either the entirety of an element of a previously prosecuted offense or at least a distinct component of such an offense, such as a RICO predicate act. The Government was simply acknowledging in Russo that for purposes of Grady a RICO predicate act should be treated as if it is an element of the offense. However, the concession in Russo does not necessarily mean that conduct previously charged as a RICO predicate act, or, as in Adamita, as an overt act, that is not charged as a distinct crime may not be used to prove an element in a subsequent prosecution. Where overt acts not charged as distinct offenses have been alleged in a prior conspiracy indictment, the question remains whether it may be said that a defendant has been “prosecuted” for such acts? I think the answer is yes.
Thus, I read Grady to bar a second prosecution whenever the defendant is at risk that the entirety of an element of an offense in a pending prosecution might be established by conduct constituting the entirety of a previously prosecuted offense (as in Grady), or the entirety of an element of such an offense, or the entirety of a distinct component of such an offense (as in Russo). The further question is how this reading applies to the pending case.
The “elements” to be proven for the offense charged in count one are the agreement charged in the Calderone indictment and the defendants’ willful joining of the conspiracy. Clearly the Government may not prove the element of willful joining by proving any of the acts identified as overt acts in the Adamita indictment. Even though 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require proof of an overt act, once the Government alleges overt acts, as it did in Adamita, the defendants were being prosecuted for those acts, and, under Grady, those acts may not be used to establish an element of the Calderone offense. Though the overt acts that the prosecution sought to prove these appellants committed in the course of the Adamita conspiracy — meetings and telephone calls — were not crimes, it was the Government’s contention that the appellants committed these acts in furtherance of the Adamita conspiracy and that these acts showed their participation in that conspiracy. The Government did not think these were innocent acts; it sought to persuade the jury in the prior case that these acts established appellants’ guilt of the Adamita conspiracy, when assessed in light of the other evidence in the case. Thus, in a very real sense, the appellants were prosecuted for these acts.
The harder question is whether the Adamita prosecution leaves the Government with any way of proving that the defendants joined the Calderone conspiracy, apart from conduct for which they were prosecuted in Adamita. It might be possible for the Government to prove that the defendants joined the Calderone conspiracy on the basis of conduct wholly distinct from the conduct relied on in the Adamita case to show that they joined the Adamita conspiracy. But the Government has made no claim that it will rely on such distinct conduct. Indeed, the lack of distinction is apparent from the two indictments; some of the overt acts charged to the defendants are common to both indictments:
*726Adamita indictment: Calderone indictment:
overt act 32 overt act 6
overt act 33 overt act 7
overt act 34 overt act 8
overt act 63 probably the same conduct as overt act 10
Even if the Government has conduct independent of the Adamita prosecution to establish the element of joining the Calder-one conspiracy, Grady cannot be overcome. The conduct for which the defendants were prosecuted in Adamita, i.e., their conduct in joining what was alleged to be a large international drug conspiracy, would have sufficed to show their joining of the allegedly smaller Calderone conspiracy. In Grady’s terms, the conduct for which they were prosecuted in Adamita would have established the entirety of an element of the Calderone offense.
A similar analysis applies to the element of the conspiracy itself. Even if it can be said that the two conspiracies are “different” in the sense that United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660 (2d Cir.1985), viewed conspiracies as different, the conduct alleged to show the existence of the big conspiracy in Adamita, conduct for which these defendants were prosecuted, would suffice to establish the element of the smaller conspiracy in Calderone. Evidence that defendants have agreed to sell heroin and other drugs over a long period of time will surely establish the element of an agreement to sell only heroin during an interval within that longer period.
If Grady bars count one, it also bars counts two through twenty-five (the “telephone” counts, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)) (1988)), because each of these counts alleges as an element the facilitation of the conspiracy charged in count one. If the defendants have already been prosecuted for conduct that establishes this element, then they cannot be prosecuted for telephone counts that include this element. And the Government has acknowledged that proof of the events alleged in counts two through twenty-eight was introduced in the Adamita trial to prove the conspiracy, thereby precluding prosecution of the possession with intent to distribute offenses charged in counts twenty-six through twenty-eight, 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) (1988).
Application of Grady to the pending case leaves the Government with precisely the same option with respect to conspiracy cases that Grady left New York with respect to single occurrence cases — package in one indictment all of the offenses to be charged. Nothing prevented the Government from including in the Adamita indictment a count charging the appellants with the smaller conspiracy now sought to be charged. Had that occurred, Judge Sprizzo, upon dismissing the broader conspiracy offense for lack of evidence, would surely have submitted the narrower conspiracy offense to the jury. Whether both conspiracy offenses could have gone to the jury if supported by evidence, whether the jury in that event could have convicted for both offenses or would have been instructed to consider the offenses in sequence and to convict only on the “greater” offense if persuaded of guilt, or whether the Government must elect among conspiracy offenses prior to jury consideration are matters that need not be resolved at this time. But the Government’s clear opportunity to have charged both conspiracy offenses in one prosecution supports application of Grady to the circumstances of this case.
For these reasons, I agree that the second indictment must be dismissed.

. In dissent, Justice Scalia makes the valid point that Grady bars use of the previously prosecuted conduct even though that conduct is not a "statutory element” of the second offense, 110 S.Ct. at 2102, that is, the homicide and assault offenses did not require proof of driving while intoxicated or driving across the center line, but required some reckless or negligent act, and in Grady’s case the State chose to satisfy the statutory element of a reckless or negligent act by proving the previously prosecuted conduct of driving while intoxicated and driving across the center line.

. I say "almost" because the fullest version of the "same evidence" test would bar any evidence that was used in the prior prosecution, whereas Grady couid be read slightly less expansively to mean that what is barred is evidence of previously prosecuted conduct that in turn is evidence of an element of the second offense. But I think it is rather artificial to draw a line between evidence from the first trial that tends to prove an element of the second offense and evidence of prosecuted conduct at the first trial that tends to prove an element of the second offense.