Abstract
The relevant conduct provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines have been the subject of considerable debate since their promulgation almost a decade ago. Application of these provisions violates the Double Jeopardy Clause when an offender is twice punished for the same conduct. This note examines the United States Supreme Court's recent holding in Witte v. United States that relevant conduct used to enhance an offender's sentence may not qualify as punishment for purposes of double jeopardy analysis. This note then questions the Court's holding and the reasoning behind it, and concludes that the majority ignored a vital distinction in its analysis.
How to Cite
37 Ariz. L. Rev. 1279 (1995)
118
Views
274
Downloads