Barrett v. United States · ¶81

Nor would taking that step represent some giant leap. Our cases discussing Blockburger as a mere presumption in the concurrent-prosecution context were decided during a relatively brief period when this Court didn't take Block- burger very seriously in any context, even when it came to successive prosecutions. See Grady v. Corbin, 495 U. S. 508, 510 (1990) (finding a double jeopardy violation based on a same-transaction test, divorced from Blockburger). Since then, however, we have expressly renounced that approach, reaffrming that Blockburger's “long-settled rule” controls what counts as “an `offence' for double jeopardy purposes” in successive prosecutions. Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. 678, 710 (2019); see also Dixon, 509 U. S., at 696, 704 (overruling Grady). Tellingly, too, in all the years since Dixon, we have not found a single case in which the “Blockburger presumption”…

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