Petitioner Dwayne Barrett was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery after his accomplice shot and killed the victim during the robbery. He was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), which criminalizes using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and § 924(j), which provides separate penalties when a § 924(c) violation causes death.
At the circuit level, the Second Circuit acknowledged that the two provisions constituted the same offense under Blockburger v. United States but concluded that Congress had authorized cumulative convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court reversed that portion of the judgment and remanded.
Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson explained that Blockburger creates a presumption that Congress ordinarily does not intend multiple convictions for the same offense. That presumption may be overcome when Congress clearly expresses a contrary intent, but Congress did not do so for the relationship between § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and § 924(j). The text was particularly significant because Congress used explicit “in addition to” language elsewhere in § 924 when it intended cumulative punishment but included no comparable language for these two provisions.
The Supreme Court therefore held that a single firearm act violating both provisions may support only one conviction—either under § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) or § 924(j), but not both. The decision resolves the issue as a matter of statutory construction informed by Double Jeopardy principles; it does not decide whether Congress could constitutionally authorize multiple convictions for the same offense if it spoke clearly.
Justice Gorsuch concurred in part. He agreed with the judgment but questioned the premise that Congress can authorize multiple convictions for the same offense in a single prosecution, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause may itself prohibit that result.
Certiorari to the Second Circuit
Opinion by Jackson; Parts I, II, III, IV–A, and IV–B joined by all other Justices
Part IV–C joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan
Opinion concurring in part by Gorsuch
Click here to read the opinion.