Barrett v. United States · ¶76

The litigants before us proceed on the unexamined premise that Blockburger works differently in concurrent prosecutions than it does in successive ones. In concurrent prosecutions, they assume, Blockburger operates as a mere “presumption” for ascertaining congressional “inten[t].” E. g., Brief for Petitioner 2 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because §924(c)(1)(A) and §924(j) create the same offense under Blockburger, they say, we should presume that just one of Mr. Barrett's convictions can stand unless Congress has clearly directed otherwise. The only question that divides the litigants is whether, in fact, Congress included clear directions in § 924 authorizing both convictions. See Brief for Petitioner 18–26; Brief for United States 15–23; Brief for Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae 15–28.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.