Barrett committed a series of robberies between August 2011 and January 2012, and during one robbery his confederate shot and killed Gamar Dafalla. The Dafalla robbery served as the predicate for count six, charging a violation of §924(c)(1)(A)(i), and count seven, charging a violation of §924(j)(1). The jury found Barrett guilty on both counts. The legal dispute concerned whether that single act could support two convictions under both provisions.
Issue
When a single act violates both 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j), did Congress clearly authorize two convictions, or may the defendant be convicted under only one of the two provisions?
Rule
If two federal criminal provisions define the same offense under Blockburger, courts presume Congress did not intend multiple convictions or punishments unless Congress has plainly expressed a contrary intent. As applied here, Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) for a single act that violates both provisions.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Cleveland, federal prosecutors charged Omar Ruiz after a pharmacy robbery. One count alleged a violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i) for using a firearm during a crime of violence, and a second count alleged a violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(j) because the same firearm use caused a bystander's death during the same robbery.
If both counts are based on that single firearm-related episode, may the court enter convictions on both counts?
Explanation. The majority treated §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) as the same offense under Blockburger when one act violates both, because the former is a lesser included offense of the latter. Once that is true, the presumption against multiple convictions applies unless Congress plainly expressed a contrary intent. The Court found no such clear statement in the text, structure, or relevant legislative history, so only one conviction may stand. (Derived from Barrett v. United States (n.d.).)