Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Witte v. United States

515 U.S. 389, 115 S. Ct. 2199, 132 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1995)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...

Witte v. United States

United States Supreme Court

515 U.S. 389, 115 S. Ct. 2199, 132 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1995)

Facts

Steven Witte (defendant) arranged with an undercover federal agent, Roger Norman, to import marijuana and cocaine from Mexico and Guatemala in June 1990. Norman was to fly the drugs into the United States from Mexico, where Witte was to receive the drugs and transport them by ground. In August, Norman learned the location of the airstrip in Mexico where the drugs were supposed to be transported to and from. Federal agents coordinated with local authorities to arrest several men involved and seize 591 kilograms of cocaine at the airstrip. Witte was not arrested. Norman’s cover remained intact. The drug-conspiracy activities ceased for several months. In January 1991, Witte agreed to purchase 1,000 pounds of marijuana form Norman. In February, Norman, Witte, and Sam Kelly, Witte’s associate, met face-to-face to conduct the marijuana transaction. Witte and Kelly provided a trailer and motorhome to undercover agents to load with marijuana. Witte showed Norman the cash he had for payment. The undercover agents returned the trailer and motorhome the next day loaded with marijuana. Witte and Kelly were arrested after they took possession of the vehicles. Witte and Kelly were indicted for intent to distribute marijuana for their conduct in January and February of 1991. Witte pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government. Witte’s presentence report included information about Witte’s involvement in the attempt to import 591 kilograms of cocaine from Guatemala via Mexico in 1990. During the sentencing hearing, the court found that the conduct from 1990 was part of the same continuing conspiracy, so it was considered relevant conduct to be considered for purposes of sentencing. Several months later, a grand jury indicted Witte and another associate for conspiring and attempting to import cocaine in 1990. Witte moved to dismiss the indictment because the cocaine involved in the 1990 transactions already had been factored into his punishment for the 1991 marijuana offense. The district court dismissed the indictment, finding that punishment for the indicted cocaine offenses would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court of appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,400 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership