Ball v. United States

470 U.S. 856·1985

What the Court Decided

Held that a conviction is itself a component of punishment for double jeopardy purposes, so a duplicative conviction must be vacated even if the sentences run concurrently.

Full entry not yet generated. Run npm run enrich-precedents to add it.

Cited In

Barrett v. United States

2025 Term · 24-5774

Established that for double jeopardy purposes, the conviction itself is part of the punishment, not just the sentence — meaning even concurrent sentences cannot cure a double jeopardy violation.