338:. The court focused on two issues; first, whether Double Jeopardy bars prosecution of Felix for the substantial drug offenses contained in the Oklahoma indictment, and second, whether the Double Jeopardy clause bars the prosecution of Felix for the conspiracy charges contained in the Oklahoma indictment. Justice Rehnquist held that The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar Felix's prosecution on either the substantive drug offenses or the conspiracy charge. The court reasoned that "a mere overlap in proof between two prosecutions does not establish a double jeopardy violation". A relevant fact the court focused on was of both the time and location of Felix's conduct for the two separate indictments. The Oklahoma indictment relied upon the conduct of Felix in regards to the Beggs methamphetamine lab in June and July, while the Missouri indictment focused on Felix's attempt to buy materials to facilitate the methamphetamine operations, two months after the Beggs lab had closed. Thus, the court held that the Court of Appeals erred in their judgement when they extended the "same conduct" test in Grady to mean the "same offense" and invoked the protection of Double Jeopardy. The court drew a distinction between conduct and offense, and reversed the judgement.
31:
355:
prosecution of Felix, however the interpretation of the "same conduct" test in the Grady dissent was the appropriate interpretation. The dissent in Grady states that when the "same conduct" mentions "conduct to establish an essential element" of the crime, the conduct must constitute the entirety of the element. Justice
Stevens argues that double jeopardy does not apply under this reasoning as Felix's two overt acts in both prosecutions do not meaningfully establish the entirety of the element.
565:
275:, but had the mistaken belief that he was working in a covert DEA operation." Prosecutors then presented evidence of prior acts committed by Felix in Oklahoma to counter his defense. Prosecutors introduced the evidence of the methamphetamine labs from Oklahoma, and the jury convicted Felix for those crimes.
354:
in averring from the majority regarding the conspiracy charge. While the majority steps away from Grady, Justice
Stevens argues that Grady can still be applied and would still result in the same conclusion. The concurrence reasoned, like the majority, that the double jeopardy clause does not bar the
282:
against Felix and other parties for his role in the methamphetamine labs in
Oklahoma. This indictment included the substantive charges of manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. At trial, prosecutors presented the same evidence from the trial in Missouri. Felix was
294:
495 U.S. 508 (1990), held that any subsequent prosecution is barred by the Double
Jeopardy Clause, if the government would need to establish an essential element of the offense charged evidenced by conduct of the defendant for which the defendant has already been prosecuted for.
1448:
279:
268:
379:
1453:
580:
364:
72:
374:
287:
234:
675:
212:
666:
678:
255:
in his
Oklahoma facility. The facility was raided and shut down by federal agents in July of the same year where they found and seized precursor materials for
1443:
369:
1458:
267:
where he was arrested with chemicals and equipment consistently used in the production of methamphetamine. Subsequently, Felix was charged in the
1147:
433:
Shindala, C. (1992). "Where
Conspiracy To Commit a Crime Is Based on Previously Prosecuted Overt Acts, No Double Jeopardy Violation Exists".
569:
659:
402:"The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment: The Supreme Court's Cursory Treatment of Underlying Conduct in Successive Prosecutions"
256:
489:"Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment-- The Supreme Court's Cursory Treatment of Underlying Conduct in Successive Prosecutions"
35:
692:
488:
1296:
892:
1072:
652:
271:
and was indicted for attempting to manufacture a controlled substance. At trial Felix presented the defense that "he never had
260:
110:
The Double
Jeopardy Clause does not bar Felix's prosecution on either the substantive drug offenses or the conspiracy charge.
959:
1096:
1029:
793:
836:
226:
1384:
1312:
721:
1196:
860:
737:
1304:
1163:
298:
Proceeding the 10th circuit ruling, the government appealed to the
Supreme Court where certiorari was granted.
1112:
1352:
1208:
516:
290:
where a divided panel ruled in favor of Felix and reversed the ruling. The tenth circuit, relying heavily on
1344:
1104:
1048:
994:
927:
919:
852:
753:
644:
844:
627:
1328:
1272:
978:
951:
876:
817:
774:
385:
319:
153:
1376:
1248:
1216:
1088:
986:
705:
584:
64:
1232:
591:
1139:
1010:
1368:
1336:
1288:
1280:
1240:
1056:
900:
609:
401:
229:, which held that "a…offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for
1320:
1256:
1224:
1171:
1155:
745:
421:
1360:
1064:
1002:
884:
442:
347:
311:
145:
125:
1408:
1264:
1131:
1080:
600:
413:
264:
1400:
935:
868:
801:
335:
327:
252:
239:
230:
177:
165:
542:
1392:
729:
351:
323:
157:
141:
237:
reversal of Felix's conviction, finding that the Court of
Appeals read the holding in
1437:
1416:
713:
331:
169:
618:
67:
315:
133:
564:
278:
Subsequently, in 1989, the government filed an eleven-count indictment in the
83:
446:
251:
In the spring of 1987, the defendant Frank Felix was illegally manufacturing
79:
636:
272:
425:
517:"The Double Jeopardy Defense and Multiple Prosecutions for Conspiracy"
100:
Certiorari to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
194:
Rehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas
417:
280:
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
269:
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
380:
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
1194:
772:
690:
648:
30:
259:. While still a free man, Felix was arrested a month later by
1449:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
543:"United States v. Felix (90-1599), 503 U.S. 378 (1992)"
365:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 503
314:
writing the opinion for the court joined by Justices
375:
Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
1123:
1040:
1021:
970:
911:
828:
785:
206:
198:
190:
185:
114:
104:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
54:United States, Petitioner v. Frank Dennis Felix
286:Felix appealed his Oklahoma conviction to the
1454:United States Double Jeopardy Clause case law
660:
225:, 503 U.S. 378 (1992), was a decision by the
8:
1191:
782:
769:
687:
667:
653:
645:
233:purposes." The Supreme Court rejected the
20:
370:List of United States Supreme Court cases
283:found guilty on all counts by the jury.
493:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
460:
406:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
346:The concurrence was written by Justice
1148:Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
18:1992 United States Supreme Court case
7:
536:
534:
510:
508:
506:
482:
480:
478:
476:
474:
472:
470:
468:
466:
464:
263:agents conducting an operation in
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1444:United States Supreme Court cases
587:378 (1992) is available from:
893:Bravo-Fernandez v. United States
563:
29:
1459:1992 in United States case law
1:
676:United States Fifth Amendment
400:Donofrio, Anthony J. (1993).
1097:Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle
1030:Blockburger v. United States
794:Blockburger v. United States
350:, who was joined by Justice
247:Facts and procedural history
837:United States v. Randenbush
547:Legal Information Institute
227:United States Supreme Court
202:Stevens, joined by Blackmun
1475:
1385:J. D. B. v. North Carolina
1313:Dickerson v. United States
722:Wong Wing v. United States
637:Oyez (oral argument audio)
515:Theis, William H. (1996).
257:methamphetamine production
1297:Mitchell v. United States
1203:
1197:Self-Incrimination Clause
1190:
1041:Dual sovereignty doctrine
861:Fong Foo v. United States
786:Meaning of "same offense"
781:
768:
738:United States v. Moreland
700:
686:
211:
119:
109:
28:
1305:United States v. Hubbell
1164:North Carolina v. Pearce
1113:Denezpi v. United States
1073:United States v. Wheeler
1353:Corley v. United States
1345:United States v. Patane
1209:Curcio v. United States
1105:Gamble v. United States
995:United States v. Dinitz
928:Ludwig v. Massachusetts
920:United States v. Wilson
853:Burton v. United States
754:United States v. Cotton
435:Mississippi Law Journal
312:Chief Justice Rehnquist
43:Argued January 14, 1992
1329:Yarborough v. Alvarado
1049:United States v. Lanza
979:United States v. Perez
960:Smith v. United States
952:United States v. Dixon
944:United States v. Felix
877:Burks v. United States
818:United States v. Dixon
810:United States v. Felix
775:Double Jeopardy Clause
577:United States v. Felix
570:United States v. Felix
386:United States v. Dixon
222:United States v. Felix
45:Decided March 25, 1992
24:United States v. Felix
1377:Berghuis v. Thompkins
1217:Griffin v. California
1089:United States v. Lara
987:United States v. Jorn
845:Ball v. United States
706:Hurtado v. California
487:Donofrio, Anthony J.
1273:Doe v. United States
1140:Palko v. Connecticut
1011:Blueford v. Arkansas
243:(1990) too broadly.
213:U.S. Const. amend. V
78:112 S.Ct. 1377; 118
1369:Maryland v. Shatzer
1337:Missouri v. Seibert
1289:McNeil v. Wisconsin
1281:Illinois v. Perkins
1241:Williams v. Florida
1057:Bartkus v. Illinois
1022:Multiple punishment
901:McElrath v. Georgia
628:Library of Congress
154:Sandra Day O'Connor
1321:Chavez v. Martinez
1257:Edwards v. Arizona
1249:Michigan v. Tucker
1225:Miranda v. Arizona
1172:Benton v. Maryland
1156:Baxstrom v. Herold
746:Beck v. Washington
679:criminal procedure
130:Associate Justices
1431:
1430:
1427:
1426:
1361:Florida v. Powell
1233:Boulden v. Holman
1186:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1065:Waller v. Florida
1003:Oregon v. Kennedy
885:Evans v. Michigan
764:
763:
568:Works related to
218:
217:
126:William Rehnquist
1466:
1409:Salinas v. Texas
1265:Oregon v. Elstad
1192:
1132:Ex parte Bigelow
1081:Heath v. Alabama
912:After conviction
783:
770:
688:
669:
662:
655:
646:
641:
635:
632:
626:
623:
617:
614:
608:
605:
599:
596:
590:
567:
551:
550:
538:
529:
528:
512:
501:
500:
484:
450:
429:
292:Grady v. Corbin,
265:Joplin, Missouri
115:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1423:
1401:Howes v. Fields
1199:
1178:
1119:
1036:
1017:
966:
936:Grady v. Corbin
907:
869:Ashe v. Swenson
829:After acquittal
824:
802:Grady v. Corbin
777:
760:
696:
682:
673:
639:
633:
630:
624:
621:
615:
612:
606:
603:
597:
594:
588:
560:
555:
554:
540:
539:
532:
514:
513:
504:
486:
485:
462:
457:
432:
418:10.2307/1143871
399:
396:
394:Further reading
361:
344:
309:
304:
273:criminal intent
253:methamphetamine
249:
240:Grady v. Corbin
235:Tenth Circuit's
231:double jeopardy
178:Clarence Thomas
168:
166:Anthony Kennedy
156:
146:John P. Stevens
144:
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1472:
1470:
1462:
1461:
1456:
1451:
1446:
1436:
1435:
1429:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1422:
1421:
1413:
1405:
1397:
1393:Bobby v. Dixon
1389:
1381:
1373:
1365:
1357:
1349:
1341:
1333:
1325:
1317:
1309:
1301:
1293:
1285:
1277:
1269:
1261:
1253:
1245:
1237:
1229:
1221:
1213:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1195:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1177:
1176:
1168:
1160:
1152:
1144:
1136:
1127:
1125:
1121:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1109:
1101:
1093:
1085:
1077:
1069:
1061:
1053:
1044:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1035:
1034:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1016:
1015:
1007:
999:
991:
983:
974:
972:
971:After mistrial
968:
967:
965:
964:
956:
948:
940:
932:
924:
915:
913:
909:
908:
906:
905:
897:
889:
881:
873:
865:
857:
849:
841:
832:
830:
826:
825:
823:
822:
814:
806:
798:
789:
787:
779:
778:
773:
766:
765:
762:
761:
759:
758:
750:
742:
734:
730:Maxwell v. Dow
726:
718:
710:
701:
698:
697:
691:
684:
683:
674:
672:
671:
664:
657:
649:
643:
642:
610:Google Scholar
573:
559:
558:External links
556:
553:
552:
530:
521:SMU Law Review
502:
459:
458:
456:
453:
452:
451:
441:(1): 229–243.
430:
412:(4): 773–803.
395:
392:
391:
390:
382:
377:
372:
367:
360:
357:
343:
340:
308:
305:
303:
300:
248:
245:
216:
215:
209:
208:
204:
203:
200:
196:
195:
192:
188:
187:
183:
182:
181:
180:
158:Antonin Scalia
142:Harry Blackmun
131:
128:
123:
117:
116:
112:
111:
107:
106:
102:
101:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1471:
1460:
1457:
1455:
1452:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1442:
1441:
1439:
1419:
1418:
1417:Vega v. Tekoh
1414:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1246:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1189:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1126:
1122:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1043:
1039:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
992:
989:
988:
984:
981:
980:
976:
975:
973:
969:
962:
961:
957:
954:
953:
949:
946:
945:
941:
938:
937:
933:
930:
929:
925:
922:
921:
917:
916:
914:
910:
903:
902:
898:
895:
894:
890:
887:
886:
882:
879:
878:
874:
871:
870:
866:
863:
862:
858:
855:
854:
850:
847:
846:
842:
839:
838:
834:
833:
831:
827:
820:
819:
815:
812:
811:
807:
804:
803:
799:
796:
795:
791:
790:
788:
784:
780:
776:
771:
767:
756:
755:
751:
748:
747:
743:
740:
739:
735:
732:
731:
727:
724:
723:
719:
716:
715:
714:Ex parte Bain
711:
708:
707:
703:
702:
699:
694:
689:
685:
680:
677:
670:
665:
663:
658:
656:
651:
650:
647:
638:
629:
620:
611:
602:
593:
592:CourtListener
586:
582:
578:
574:
572:at Wikisource
571:
566:
562:
561:
557:
548:
544:
541:Cornell Law.
537:
535:
531:
526:
522:
518:
511:
509:
507:
503:
498:
494:
490:
483:
481:
479:
477:
475:
473:
471:
469:
467:
465:
461:
454:
448:
444:
440:
436:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
398:
397:
393:
388:
387:
383:
381:
378:
376:
373:
371:
368:
366:
363:
362:
358:
356:
353:
349:
341:
339:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
306:
301:
299:
296:
293:
289:
288:Tenth Circuit
284:
281:
276:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
246:
244:
242:
241:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:
214:
210:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
186:Case opinions
184:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:Chief Justice
121:
120:
118:
113:
108:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1415:
1407:
1399:
1391:
1383:
1375:
1367:
1359:
1351:
1343:
1335:
1327:
1319:
1311:
1303:
1295:
1287:
1279:
1271:
1263:
1255:
1247:
1239:
1231:
1223:
1215:
1207:
1170:
1162:
1154:
1146:
1138:
1130:
1111:
1103:
1095:
1087:
1079:
1071:
1063:
1055:
1047:
1028:
1009:
1001:
993:
985:
977:
958:
950:
943:
942:
934:
926:
918:
899:
891:
883:
875:
867:
859:
851:
843:
835:
816:
809:
808:
800:
792:
752:
744:
736:
728:
720:
712:
704:
576:
546:
524:
520:
496:
492:
438:
434:
409:
405:
384:
345:
310:
297:
291:
285:
277:
250:
238:
221:
220:
219:
207:Laws applied
173:
170:David Souter
161:
149:
137:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
342:Concurrence
199:Concurrence
134:Byron White
1438:Categories
693:Grand Jury
455:References
84:U.S. LEXIS
527:(2): 270.
447:0026-6280
82:25; 1992
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
681:case law
575:Text of
499:(4): 83.
359:See also
352:Blackmun
320:O'Connor
302:Decision
191:Majority
601:Findlaw
426:1143871
348:Stevens
328:Kennedy
307:Opinion
105:Holding
1420:(2022)
1412:(2013)
1404:(2012)
1396:(2011)
1388:(2011)
1380:(2010)
1372:(2010)
1364:(2010)
1356:(2009)
1348:(2004)
1340:(2004)
1332:(2004)
1324:(2003)
1316:(2000)
1308:(2000)
1300:(1999)
1292:(1991)
1284:(1990)
1276:(1988)
1268:(1985)
1260:(1981)
1252:(1974)
1244:(1970)
1236:(1969)
1228:(1966)
1220:(1965)
1212:(1957)
1175:(1969)
1167:(1969)
1159:(1966)
1151:(1947)
1143:(1937)
1135:(1885)
1116:(2022)
1108:(2019)
1100:(2016)
1092:(2004)
1084:(1985)
1076:(1978)
1068:(1970)
1060:(1959)
1052:(1922)
1033:(1932)
1014:(2012)
1006:(1982)
998:(1976)
990:(1971)
982:(1824)
963:(2023)
955:(1993)
947:(1992)
939:(1990)
931:(1976)
923:(1833)
904:(2024)
896:(2016)
888:(2013)
880:(1978)
872:(1970)
864:(1962)
856:(1906)
848:(1896)
840:(1834)
821:(1993)
813:(1992)
805:(1990)
797:(1932)
757:(2002)
749:(1962)
741:(1922)
733:(1900)
725:(1896)
717:(1887)
709:(1884)
695:Clause
640:
634:
631:
625:
622:
619:Justia
616:
613:
607:
604:
598:
595:
589:
445:
424:
389:(1993)
336:Thomas
334:, and
332:Souter
324:Scalia
176:
174:·
172:
164:
162:·
160:
152:
150:·
148:
140:
138:·
136:
1124:Other
583:
422:JSTOR
316:White
97:Prior
585:U.S.
443:ISSN
86:1954
73:more
65:U.S.
63:503
581:503
414:doi
261:DEA
68:378
1440::
579:,
545:.
533:^
525:49
523:.
519:.
505:^
497:83
495:.
491:.
463:^
439:62
437:.
420:.
410:83
408:.
404:.
330:,
326:,
322:,
318:,
668:e
661:t
654:v
549:.
449:.
428:.
416::
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.