Grady v. Corbin

Grady v. Corbin
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 21, 1990 Decided May 29, 1990
Full case name	William V. Grady, District Attorney of Dutchess County v. Thomas J. Corbin
Citations	495 U.S. 508 (more) 110 S. Ct. 2084; 109 L. Ed. 2d 548; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2698
Case history
Prior	Writ of prohibition granted, Corbin v. Hillery, 74 N.Y.2d 279, 543 N.E.2d 714, 545 N.Y.S.2d 71 (1989); cert. granted, 493 U.S. 953 (1989).
Holding
The Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
Majority	Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens
Dissent	O'Connor
Dissent	Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V
Overruled by
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993)

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that: "the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted."^[1]