## Facts

- Alvin J. Dixon was arrested for second-degree murder in the District of Columbia, released on bond, and ordered not to commit “any criminal offense,” with warning of possible contempt prosecution.
- While on release, Dixon was arrested and indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
- After a show-cause hearing, the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Dixon committed the drug offense and convicted him of criminal contempt for violating the release condition.
- Dixon moved to dismiss the drug indictment, arguing the contempt conviction already punished the same offense.
- Michael Foster was subject to a civil protection order prohibiting assaulting or threatening his estranged wife.
- Foster was convicted of criminal contempt for violating the protection order based on later incidents.
- Foster was then indicted for five substantive offenses arising from the same episodes: simple assault, three counts of threatening to injure another, and assault with intent to kill.
- Foster moved to dismiss the indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions trigger Double Jeopardy protections to the same extent as other criminal prosecutions.
2. Whether successive-prosecution Double Jeopardy is governed by Blockburger’s “same-elements” test or Grady’s “same-conduct” test.
3. Under the governing test, whether the later prosecutions of Dixon and Foster were barred.

## Decision

- The Court held that Double Jeopardy applies to nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions as in other criminal cases.
- The Court overruled Grady v. Corbin and rejected the “same-conduct” test.
- The Court reaffirmed Blockburger’s “same-elements” test as the controlling standard for successive prosecutions.
- Applying Blockburger, the Court held Dixon’s later drug prosecution was barred because the contempt conviction, as charged and proved, required establishing the drug offense.
- Applying Blockburger to Foster, the Court held some later counts were barred and others were not, depending on whether each offense required proof of an element the other did not.
- The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Nonsummary criminal contempt is a criminal prosecution for Double Jeopardy purposes when it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and results in punitive sanctions.
- Successive prosecutions are barred only when the two offenses are the “same offence” under Blockburger: each offense must contain an element not contained in the other; otherwise they are the same.
- Double Jeopardy does not bar a subsequent prosecution merely because it involves the same underlying conduct; the elements of the offenses control.
- When a contempt conviction is defined and proved by establishing commission of a specific substantive crime, a later prosecution for that same crime may be barred because the elements fully overlap.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Double Jeopardy applies fully to nonsummary criminal contempt and that successive-prosecution analysis is governed by Blockburger’s same-elements test, not Grady’s same-conduct approach; on that basis, Dixon’s later drug prosecution was barred and Foster’s later charges were barred only to the extent their elements overlapped with the contempt offense.


United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993)