ROBERT IANNELLI AND SEVEN OTHER PETITIONERS WERE CHARGED WITH CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE AND VIOLATING A FEDERAL GAMBLING STATUTE WHICH MAKES IT A CRIME FOR FIVE OR MORE PERSONS TO CONDUCT, FINANCE, MANAGE, SUPERVISE, DIRECT, OR OWN A GAMBLING BUSINESS PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW. EACH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF BOTH OFFENSES, AND EACH WAS SENTENCED UNDER BOTH COUNTS. ON APPEAL THE PETITIONERS ARGUED THAT CONVICTION OF BOTH CONSPIRACY AND THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE WAS PRECLUDED BY WHARTON'S RULE, A COMMON LAW EXCEPTION TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE AND A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATELY PUNISHABLE. THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS, FINDING THAT A RECOGNIZED EXCEPTION TO WHARTON'S RULE PERMITTED PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT FOR BOTH OFFENSES. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, IN A 5-4 DECISION, AFFIRMED ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS. IT HELD THAT WHARTON'S RULE IS ONLY A JUDICIAL PRESUMPTION WHICH WAS RENDERED INAPPLICABLE BY A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO PERMIT PUNISHMENT FOR BOTH THE CONSPIRACY AND THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE (IANNELLI V. UNITED STATES, 1975). THIS NOTE ANALYZES THE COURT'S FINDING OF A LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF WHARTON'S RULE. IT WILL FURTHER ANALYZE WHARTON'S RULE AND ITS JUSTIFICATIONS, AND THE PRINCIPLES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS APPLIED TO THE MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS IN IANNELLI. IT WILL BE ARGUED THAT THE COURT FAILED TO WEIGH CAREFULLY (A) THE DOCTRINAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY, AND (B) THE PRINCIPLE OF PROHIBITING PUNISMENT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE, WHICH UNDERLIES BOTH WHARTON'S RULE AND THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CONCEPT. THE NOTE CONCLUDES THAT THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO OVERCOME THIS PRESUMPTIVE RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND THAT THE MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD INVALID AS VIOLATIVE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY PRINCIPLES.