Grady v. Corbin
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
1,620 later cases cite Grady v. Corbin; 409 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Grady v. Corbin?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled
-
The Supreme Court overruled Grady’s same-conduct test for successive prosecutions under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
United States v. Dixon · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We have concluded, however, that Grady must be overruled. ... The "same-conduct" rule it announced is wholly inconsistent with earlier Supreme Court precedent and with the clear common-law understanding of double jeopardy. ... We therefore accept the Government's invitation to overrule Grady, and Counts II, III, IV, and V of Foster's subsequent prosecution are not barred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Eleventh Circuit limited Grady's same-conduct double-jeopardy rule to single-act crimes and applied Garrett v. United States to permit a later RICO prosecution after a predicate-offense conviction.
United States v. Gonzalez · Eleventh Circuit · filed
Grady’s double jeopardy formulation barring successive prosecutions involving the same “conduct” is, by its facts and the facts of the cases it relies upon, limited to single act crimes.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eleventh Circuit followed Gonzalez as binding precedent and likewise limited Grady's same-conduct rule to single-act crimes rather than complex RICO offenses.
United States v. Link · Eleventh Circuit · filed
Grady’s double jeopardy formulation barring successive prosecutions involving the same “conduct” is, by its facts and the facts of the cases it relies upon, limited to single act crimes.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Limits Grady’s same-conduct test in RICO prosecutions, applying Garrett to permit a racketeering prosecution based on previously prosecuted narcotics offenses.
United States v. LeQuire · Eleventh Circuit · filed
We note, however, that the rationale of Garrett is more appropriate than Grady in RICO situations, which can run over an extended period of time and involve a large number of individuals. Grady, on the other hand, is more applicable in single offense situations, such as drunk driving.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Confines Grady’s same-conduct rule to single-transaction cases and applies Garrett to successive prosecutions for compound RICO offenses involving previously prosecuted predicate acts.
United States v. O’Connor · Seventh Circuit · filed
Like the Third Circuit, we believe that Grady controls single transaction cases like Brown, while Garrett remains the standard for double-jeopardy problems involving “successive prosecutions in cases of compound-complex felonies such as RICO.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Grady’s same-conduct language does not bar a conspiracy prosecution merely because its overt acts include substantive offenses already prosecuted.
United States v. Felix · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Felix contends, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that language from Grady bars the conspiracy prosecution. There we said that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a prosecution where the Government, “to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.” 495 U. S., at 521. Taken out of context, and read literally, this language supports the defense of double jeopardy. But we decline to read the language so expansively, because of the context in which Grady arose and because of difficulties which have already arisen in its interpretation. ... Faced with the necessity of reconciling this longstanding authority with our language in Grady, we choose to adhere to the Bayer-Pinkerton line of cases dealing with the distinction between conspiracy to commit an offense and the offense itself. These are separate offenses for double jeopardy purposes.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Grady announced a new procedural rule that does not apply retroactively on collateral review to convictions already final before that decision.
United States v. Salerno · Second Circuit · filed
In sum, the double jeopardy rule announced in Grady is a new rule that does not fit within either exception to the principle denying retroactive application of such rules on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Grady’s same-conduct rule does not benefit a habeas petitioner whose conviction became final before Grady; the court applies Teague nonretroactivity.
Steele v. Young · Tenth Circuit · filed
Steele could not have received the benefit, if any, from this temporarily altered standard because his conviction became final several years prior to Grady.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to follow
-
Declines to retain Grady’s same-conduct rationale as an independent Texas constitutional bar to a successive DWI prosecution.
Jones v. State · Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District (Corpus Christi) · filed
Appellant here has presented neither argument nor authority for the proposition that Texas might continue to cling to the Grady rationale as an independent state ground which might bar her prosecution for DWI on double jeopardy grounds. The Texas cases since Dixon have applied the simple “same elements” test of Blockburger. See Rice, 861 S.W.2d 925; Holguin, 861 S.W.2d 919. In this instance, we hold that the Texas constitutional provisions regarding double jeopardy should be construed the same as the United States constitutional provisions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Rejects retaining Grady’s same-conduct rule under the Illinois Constitution and adopts Dixon’s same-elements framework for state double-jeopardy analysis.
People v. Benson · Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District · filed
In Stefan, our supreme court adopted the Grady "same conduct” test. … The language of the double jeopardy clause contained in the State constitution is quite similar to that of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, and our supreme court has relied on the decisions of the United States Supreme Court to interpret the State provision. (See Stefan, 146 Ill. 2d at 332; People v. Gray (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 44, 48.) In Stefan, the court concluded that the appellate court in that case had erroneously relied on supreme court cases decided prior to Grady and overruled those cases insofar as they were inconsistent with Grady. (Stefan, 146 Ill. 2d at 336.) We must avoid committing the same error as the appellate court in Stefan. Accordingly, we adopt Dixon as controlling.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declines to adopt Grady’s same-conduct test as an independent protection under article I, section 14 of the Texas Constitution, retaining the federal same-elements approach.
Parrish v. State · Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District · filed
With the demise of Grady, we see no reason to depart from that policy of uniformity of interpretation. Therefore, we decline to find that an expanded concept of double jeopardy prevails ... in Texas.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declines to adopt Grady’s same-conduct test for successive prosecutions under article I, section 9 of the Washington Constitution.
State v. Gocken · Washington Supreme Court · filed
We conclude the Gunwall factors do not support Mr. Gocken’s contention that the state double jeopardy clause provides broader protection to criminal defendants than the federal double jeopardy clause. We hold Const, art. I, § 9 is given the same interpretation the Supreme Court gives to the Fifth Amendment. The Blockburger "same elements” test, a test this court has applied in one form or another for nearly 100 years, rather than the Grady "same conduct” test, applies to determine whether successive prosecutions violate the double jeopardy clause in Const. art. I, § 9.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declines to adopt Grady’s same-conduct test under article I, section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Commonwealth v. Hockenbury · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · filed
We conclude that Appellant has failed to present a persuasive argument as to the existence of “adequate and independent state grounds” which would justify interpreting this Commonwealth’s double jeopardy provision as being synonymous with the Grady “same conduct” test. Furthermore, our ... own independent review of this matter has not uncovered any persuasive arguments as to why this Commonwealth’s constitutional double jeopardy protection should be in lock-step with the overruled Grady opinion. We therefore deny Appellant relief on her last issue.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declines to adopt Grady’s same-conduct test under the New Mexico Constitution for a domestic-violence contempt proceeding followed by prosecution for distinct felony offenses.
State v. Powers · New Mexico Court of Appeals · filed
In the present ease, Defendant asserts that Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution requires the application of the “same conduct” test articulated in Grady, in addition to the “same elements” inquiry. ... For these reasons, our recognition that there may be different interests at stake in successive prosecution cases than in multiple punishment cases does not mean that we must depart from the “same elements” test in order to comply with the Double Jeopardy Clause in Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution. See Kurzawa, 509 N.W.2d at 721-22. We conclude that, on balance, the “same elements” test adequately protects Defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy in the context of successive prosecutions governed by our state constitution, provided that the elements of indirect criminal contempt are determined in light of the particular court order being violated rather than in the abstract.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declines to adopt Grady’s same-conduct holding as Maryland common law.
In re Michael W. · Maryland Court of Appeals · filed
We decline to adopt the confused and discredited Grady v. Corbin holding as part of Maryland common law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Rejects Grady’s same-conduct test as an independent rule under the Illinois double jeopardy clause and readopts Blockburger’s same-elements test.
People v. Sienkiewicz · Supreme Court of Illinois · filed
Thus, we take this opportunity to reject explicitly the Corbin test and to readopt the Blockburger same-elements test as the proper means of examining potential violations of the Illinois double jeopardy clause.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declines to adopt Grady’s same-conduct test as greater state-law double-jeopardy protection against successive prosecutions; retains the same-elements test.
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez · Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · filed
Although the United States Supreme Court briefly adopted the same conduct test in successive prosecutions in Grady, the Court quickly reversed course, expressly overruling Grady three years later in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 697, 704 (1993). There, the Court held that the Federal Constitution requires application only of the same elements test in both single and successive prosecutions. Id. at 710-712. By arguing that we should apply the same conduct test in the case of successive prosecutions, the defendant asks us to provide a higher level of protection than is required by the United States Constitution. Although State common law and statutory law may provide greater protection against double jeopardy, Commonwealth v. Carlino, 449 Mass. at 79 n.20, as a general matter, "we have long recognized a protection against double jeopardy that is coextensive with Federal protection." MacLean v. State Bd. of Retirement, 432 Mass. 339, 350 n.14 (2000). We decline to go further here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Grady v. Corbin and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace