# Iannelli v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 25, 1975 · 420 U.S. 770

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426047

## Case

- **Full name:** IANNELLI Et Al. v. UNITED STATES
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 25, 1975
- **Citations:** 420 U.S. 770; 95 S. Ct. 1284; 43 L. Ed. 2d 616; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 52
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brennan
- **Judges:** Brennan, Powell, Douglas, Stewart, Marshall
- **Cited by:** 1,242 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled on other grounds by Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426047

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the Blockburger test “serves a generally similar function of identifying congressional intent to impose separate sanctions for multiple offenses arising in the course of a single act or transaction. In determining whether separate punishment might be imposed, B…
- holding "that the history and structure of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 mánifest a clear and unmistakable legislative judgment that more than outweighs any presumption of merger between the conspiracy * * * and the consummation of that substantive offense”
- holding that Wharton’s Rule did not apply because a review of the applicable statutes showed that Congress did not intend that conspiracy to violate a federal gambling statute be merged with the substantive gambling offense
- holding that the legislative intent expressed in the history and structure of the act prohibiting illegal gambling manifested a clear intent to punish conspiracy as a distinct offense, outweighing any presumption of merger
- stating that the Blockburger test “focuses on the statutory elements of the offense” and that the test may be satisfied “notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Brennan*,
dissenting.
In Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81 (1955), this Court held that in criminal cases “[w]hen Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity.” Id., at 83 . I agree with Mr. Justice Douglas that “[§] 1955 is . . . most sensibly viewed as a statute directed at conspiracy in a particular context,” ante, at 795, and that the statute is at best silent on whether punishment for both the substantive crime and conspiracy was intended. In this situation, I would invoke Bell’s, rule of lenity. I therefore dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426047. Public record. Not legal advice.