Barrett v. United States · ¶77

Addressing the case as the litigants have framed it, the Court today holds that nothing in § 924 overcomes the “Blockburger presumption,” so only one of Mr. Barrett's convictions can stand. Ante, at 131–132, 138–140. I agree with that as far as it goes. But it's also hard not to wonder where the litigants' presumptive version of Blockburger comes from. If the Constitution always prohibits the government from securing two convictions for the same offense in successive prosecutions, why would it sometimes tolerate a different result in concurrent prosecutions?

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