Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that: "the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted."[1]
| Grady v. Corbin | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 21, 1990 Decided May 29, 1990 | |
| Full case name | William V. Grady, District Attorney of Dutchess County v. Thomas J. Corbin |
| Citations | 495 U.S. 508 (more) 110 S. Ct. 2084; 109 L. Ed. 2d 548; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2698 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Writ of prohibition granted, Corbin v. Hillery, 74 N.Y.2d 279, 543 N.E.2d 714, 545 N.Y.S.2d 71 (1989); cert. granted, 493 U.S. 953 (1989). |
| Holding | |
| The Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens |
| Dissent | O'Connor |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
Overruled by | |
| United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) | |
Background edit
In the fall of 1987, Thomas Corbin was driving under the influence as he drove his automobile across the center line of a New York highway and collided with two oncoming vehicles. Brenda Dirago, the driver of the second vehicle, died in this accident while her husband was seriously injured. Later that same day, Corbin was charged with DUI and pleaded guilty.
Opinion of the Court edit
In an opinion by Justice Brennan, the Supreme Court ruled that to subsequently try him for homicide would constitute double jeopardy.[2]
Aftermath edit
Grady was only valid law for three years. It was overturned by United States v. Dixon,[3] which rejected the same conduct test in favor of the longstanding same element test. The same element test had been the law since Blockburger v. United States.[4]
See also edit
References edit
- ^ Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990).
- ^ Foderaro, Lisa W. (June 2, 1990). "Double-Jeopardy Ruling Compounds Grief". New York Times.
- ^ United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993).
- ^ Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932).
Further reading edit
- Barton, S. (1990). "Grady v. Corbin: An Unsuccessful Effort to Define Same Offense". Georgia Law Review. 25: 143. ISSN 0016-8300.
- Brudzinski, Walter J.; Farashahi, Afshin (1992). "Double Jeopardy in Successive Prosecutions: The Impact of Grady v. Corbin". Thomas Jefferson Law Review. 14: 181. ISSN 1090-5278.
- McGinnis, L. A. (1990). "Grady v. Corbin: Doubling the Scope of the Double Jeopardy Clause". Ohio Northern University Law Review. 17: 873. ISSN 0094-534X.
- Webre, C. J. (1990). "Grady v. Corbin: Successive Prosecutions Must Survive Heightened Double Jeopardy Protection". Loyola Law Review. 36: 1171. ISSN 0192-9720.
External links edit
- Text of Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |