Double Jeopardy Bars Second Conviction for Similar Conduct
In a recent Untied States Supreme Court case, Barrett v. United States, the Court ruled in a unanimous decision that a defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced twice for a single act under the specific gun charges resulting from the same shooting. In the case at issue, Dwayne Barrett participated in a series of robberies, one of which resulted in the death of another by Barrett’s confederate. After a trial, he was found guilty of seven charges, including two, § 924(c) (Using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking) and § 924(j) (Causing death through the use of a firearm during a § 924(c) which has a different penalty scheme including potentially the death penalty), and sentenced to 90 years imprisonment, which he argued violated the double jeopardy clause because the two counts arose from the same shooting. In agreeing with Barrett, the court held that § 924(c) is a “lesser-included offense” to § 924(j) and thus may only result in one conviction. In ruling so, the Court found that under the Blockburger rule, there is a presumption that Congress does not intend to punish similar offense conduct in two separate counts unless it explicitly says so, particularly where the two statutes require proof of the same elements. The ruling does not mean that Barrett will be released, but the Court remanded the case to the lower courts to comply with this ruling, which could have large implications given the mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences that follow convictions of this kind under these specific statutes. Given that this ruling raises a constitutional violation, this will leave other courts with similar obligations to review cases that involve multiple convictions for firearm charges that arise out of the same conduct for possible double jeopardy problems which could necessitate resentencing. Anyone who is currently incarcerated on similar gun charges should consult with an attorney to see if their rights were previously violated under similar circumstances.
Court Affirms Lowered Standard for Warrantless Entries in Emergency
In another case decided the same day, Case v. Montana, the Supreme Court set the standard for warrantless entry to a home under the “emergency-aid” exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches. In that case, an ex-girlfriend of William Case called 911 after she reported he was threatening suicide and may have shot himself. Officers reporting to Case’s home knocked on the door, yelled into an open window with no response and decided to enter after seeing an empty gun holster and possible suicide note in order to possibly render emergency aid. After entering the home under these circumstances, but without a warrant, officers approached a closet in which Case, unbeknownst to officers, was hiding and when he opened the curtain holding what officers believed to be a handgun, they shot him. Case ultimately survived after being transported to the hospital but was charged with assault to a police officer, which he moved to suppress given the warrantless entry into his home. At issue was whether the previously articulated “objective reasonable basis for believing” someone needed emergency assistance standard for which officers may enter a home to provide aid, the same as whether or not they have “probable cause” (similar to search warrants and arrests) to believe an emergency is happening, to lawfully circumvent Fourth Amendment scrutiny. Despite the fact that “[S]earches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, the Court ultimately found that in this specific instance and circumstance such an entry did not violate the Case’s Fourth Amendment rights. In finding so, the Court found that as it relates to rendering emergency aid to prevent or deal with serious harm, a common sense reasonableness standard should apply rather than “probable cause” standard necessary for criminal investigations. However, the Court emphasized the need to look at the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether their actions are reasonable in light of Fourth Amendment protections. In this case, the officers saw articulable evidence of a possible emergency situation that could have required their assistance, coupled with the 911 call that let them know of Case’s previous suicidal ideations and other facts stated on the record so that their entry was reasonable which made their warrantless entry justified. That being said, that does not mean that all warrantless entries are not per se unreasonable, and any such instance will be based heavily on the facts of an individual case. If you or anyone you know is facing charges based on a warrantless search of their home, vehicle, or person, make sure to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney who can ensure proper protocols were followed and that the Fourth Amendment was not violated in the process.
