In United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), the defendant (Dixon) was released on bond on a murder charge. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. at 691. A condition of his release was that he not commit any further crimes. Id. While on pre-trial release, he was arrested and indicted for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. Id. Based on the cocaine charge, the defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt for violating the terms of his release, and was sentenced to prison. Id., 509 U.S. at 691-92. The defendant thereafter moved to dismiss the cocaine charge arguing that punishment for the charge would violate the double jeopardy clause. Id. The trial court granted the motion and the United States Supreme Court affirmed. The Court found that "criminal contempt, at least the sort enforced through nonsummary proceedings, is 'a crime in the ordinary sense.'" Id., 509 U.S. at 696. The majority of the Court found that because the defendant was punished in the contempt proceedings for the cocaine possession, he could not be punished for the same offense in a later criminal proceeding. Id. 509 U.S. at 700, 113 S. Ct. at 2858 (J. Scalia, delivering the opinion with J. Kennedy joining, and with J. White, J. Stevens and J. Souter concurring in result). Whether the contempt proceeding punished the defendant for the same offense as the criminal prosecution was determined by using the same-elements test announced in Blockburger v. United States. Id. Under Blockburger, the question is whether "each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the 'same offence' and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution." Id., 509 U.S. at 696, 113 S. Ct. at 2856. A majority of the Dixon Court found that because the defendant was punished in the prior criminal contempt proceeding, the double jeopardy clause barred later prosecution for the cocaine offense. Id., 509 U.S. at 690. The United States Supreme Court held that "the government is entirely free to bring its prosecutions separately, and can win convictions in both" as long as the separate prosecutions do not violate Blockburger. Id. at 705. The court found that double jeopardy only prevents multiple prosecutions for the "same offense" or a "separate offense where the government has lost an earlier prosecution involving the same facts;" but does not require that the government must bring its prosecutions together. Id. at 705.