Justices Reject Separate Convictions in Fatal Robbery Case (1)

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a Second Circuit order mandating two separate convictions and sentences—one for a gun charge, the other for a killing—stemming from the same fatal robbery.

Congress generally intends to authorize one conviction per offense, an analysis that applies here, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote.

The decision resolves a seven-circuit split over whether cumulative sentences for crimes stemming from the same conduct violate double jeopardy, and reinforced a nearly century-old legal principle limiting multiple punishments in such cases absent Congressional intent otherwise.

The defendant in the underlying matter, Dwayne Barrett, argued that sentencing him consecutively violated his protections against double jeopardy, noting that the counts stemmed from the same conduct and one was a lesser included offense of the other. The two sections in question are under 18 U.S.C. § 924.

Congress didn’t authorize convictions under both sections for one act “that violates both provisions,” Wednesday’s opinion says. Legislators intended one section as “an alternative, not a supplement,” to the other, Jackson wrote.

“At the very least, Congress did not clearly manifest a contrary intention, as it would have to do if it wished to authorize two convictions in these circumstances,” the opinion says.

Jackson’s opinion was joined by all justices, though the last section on the statute’s legislative history was joined only by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a partial concurring opinion.

The portion of the opinion not joined by Gorsuch didn’t constitute an opinion of the court.

Gorsuch noted that the court’s precedents “speak confusingly” about how to analyze double-jeopardy concerns stemming from a single prosecution, rather than successive cases.

Wednesday’s decision “is correct as far as it goes,” Gorsuch wrote, but “sooner or later we will have to clear up the confusion—and to my eyes, this case serves as a poster child for how that confusion should be resolved. Mr. Barrett really was charged twice for one offense. He really was convicted twice. Before our intervention, he really was set to be criminally punished twice. And whatever Congress might or might not intend, that is double jeopardy.”

The case is Barrett v. US, U.S., No. 24-5774, opinion 1/14/26.