Barrett v. United States · ¶78

One thing here is certain. The litigants framed this case the way they did because our cases speak confusingly about the role of the Double Jeopardy Clause in concurrent prosecutions. This Court has sometimes said that the Clause “ `protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.' ” Schiro v. Farley, 510 U. S. 222, 229 (1994) (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 717 (1969)). And we have held that multiple convictions for the same offense— even when secured in a single proceeding—count as multiple punishments. Ball v. United States, 470 U. S. 856, 865 (1985). From this, it would seem to follow that Congress cannot authorize multiple convictions for the same offense in concurrent prosecutions. But this Court has also sometimes said that, in the concurrent-prosecution context, the Clause merely directs courts to ascertain statutory meaning accurately. “ `The…

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