[2] The defendant advanced two legal theories as his defense: Justice Sutherland, writing for a unanimous court, first held that the two sales, having been made at different times (albeit to the same person), were two separate and distinct violations of the law.

As to the issue of whether the defendant had been subjected to double jeopardy, Sutherland reasoned negatively: Each of the offenses created requires proof of a different element.

[3]While Sutherland conceded that the penalties under the Act were harsh, he wrote that it was up to Congress, rather than the courts, to change the sentencing scheme.

Although the case is often cited for the standard that it set with regard to double jeopardy, the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the opinion itself.

[4] Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two offenses arising out of the same criminal incident if each crime contains an element that is not found in the other.