Summary
Supreme Court Review
The Supreme Court held in Rutledge v. United States conspiracy to be a lesser included offense of continuing criminal enterprise so that convictions for both offenses based on the same conduct violated the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. This ruling ended a peiod of ambiguity since Congress passed the continuing criminal enterprise statute in 1970. The Court's failure to address inconsistencies between this and several of its prior rulings will lead to confusion greater than the ruling resolves.See the full content of this document
Extract
Changing the tide of double jeopardy in the context of the continuing criminal enterprise.
Rutledge v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 1241 (1996)
I. INTRODUCTION In Rutledge v. United States,(1) the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a court may convict and impose concurrent sentences for continuing criminal enterprise (CCE)(2) and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances(3) a predicate offense of CCE.(4) The Court held that conspiracy is a lesser included offense of CCE and that convictions for both offenses based upon the same underlying conduct violates the Double jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.(5) This decision ended eighteen years of ambiguity and confusion among the circuits created after Congress passed the CCE statute in 1970 and the Court published an ambiguous decision, Jeffers v. United States.(6) In reaching its decision, the Court relied upon its historical interpretation of the Double jeopardy Clause as prohibiting multiple punishments for the "same offense."(7) The Court looked to the clear language of the CCE and conspiracy statutes in determining that, because the conspiracy statute describes a lesser included offense of CCE, conspiracy is the "same offense" as CCE.(8) Thus, the Court remanded the case for vacation of one the convictions.(9) This Note contends that the Court's failure to address inconsistencies between its reasoning in Rutledge and several of its prior decisions in similar contexts will lead to confusion far greater than that resolved by the decision. First, the Court's conclusion that Congress did not intend to provide multiple punishment when CCE and drug conspiracy arise from the same act disregarded and is inconsistent with its analysis of congressional intent in Garrett v. United States(10) where it faced a similar issue.(11) Second, the Court's reliance upon the Blockburger(12) "same-elements test" to conclude that conspiracy is a lesser included offense of CCE shared improper disregard for the question of whether the test should apply to compound offenses such as CCE. Finally, the Court's decision is inconsistent with its pronouncements in an analogous context, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(13) ("RICO"), in which the court has said that convictions for both RICO and conspiracy do not constitute double jeopardy.(14) II. BACKGROUND A. HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE The Double jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense.(15) The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Clause to provide three constitutional safeguards for defendants.(16) The Clause "protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense."(17) In determining whether cumulative punishments or successive prosecutions violate the multiple punishment prong of th...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
