465 U.S. 354 (1984), 82-1047, United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms

Docket NºNo. 82-1047.
Citation465 U.S. 354, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 79 L.Ed.2d 361
Party NameUNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. ONE ASSORTMENT OF 89 FIREARMS.
Case DateFebruary 22, 1984
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 354

465 U.S. 354 (1984)

104 S.Ct. 1099, 79 L.Ed.2d 361

UNITED STATES, Petitioner,

v.

ONE ASSORTMENT OF 89 FIREARMS.

No. 82-1047.

United States Supreme Court.

Feb. 22, 1984

Argued Nov. 30, 1983.

[104 S.Ct. 1100] Syllabus[*]

SYLLABUS

Upon trial in Federal District Court, defendant Mulcahey, who asserted the defense of entrapment, was acquitted of charges of knowingly engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 922(a)(1). The Government then instituted this in rem action for forfeiture of the firearms involved, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(d), which authorizes forfeitures of any firearms "involved in or used or intended to be used in, any violation of this chapter." Ordering forfeiture, the District Court rejected Mulcahey's defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel based on his earlier acquittal. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that because the § 924(d) forfeiture proceeding was criminal and punitive in nature, it was barred by double jeopardy principles in view of Mulcahey's prior acquittal. Relying on Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684, the Court of Appeals also held that the forfeiture action was barred by collateral estoppel, because it was based upon the same facts as the earlier criminal action.

[104 S.Ct. 1101] Held: A gun owner's acquittal on criminal charges involving firearms does not preclude a subsequent in rem forfeiture proceeding against those firearms under § 924(d). Pp. 1102 - 1107.

(a) To the extent that Coffey v. United States, supra, suggests that collateral estoppel or double jeopardy automatically bars a civil, remedial forfeiture proceeding following an acquittal on related criminal charges, it is disapproved. Cf. Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 58 S.Ct. 630, 82 L.Ed. 917; One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232, 93 S.Ct. 489, 34 L.Ed.2d 438. Pp. 1102 - 1104.

(b) The difference in the relative burdens of proof in the criminal and civil actions precludes the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Acquittal on a criminal charge merely reflects the existence of a reasonable doubt as to Mulcahey's guilt, not innocence. Nor did the acquittal negate the possibility that a preponderance of the evidence in the forfeiture proceeding could show that Mulcahey was engaged in an unlicensed firearms business. Pp. 1104-1105.

(c) The Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to civil proceedings and is not applicable here. Under the procedural mechanisms established for enforcing forfeitures under § 924(d), Congress intended such

Page 355

forfeitures to be civil and remedial, rather than criminal and punitive. Moreover, the differences in the language of § 924(d), which subjects to forfeiture firearms used or "intended to be used" in substantive offenses, and § 922(a)(1), which does not render unlawful mere intention to deal in firearms without a license, shows that the forfeiture provisions were meant to be broader in scope than the criminal sanctions. The forfeiture provision also furthers broad remedial aims of controlling the indiscriminate flow of firearms. Nor is the statutory scheme so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate Congress' intention to establish a civil remedial mechanism. Pp. 1105 - 1107.

685 F.2d 913 (4th Cir.1982), reversed and remanded.

COUNSEL

Richard G. Wilkins argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Jensen, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, Sidney M. Glazer, and Vincent Gambale.

Herbert W. Louthian argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief wasRichard E. Gardiner.*

* John L. Pottenger, Jr., and Steven Wizner filed a brief for the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization of the Yale Law School as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

Richard G. Wilkins, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Herbert W. Louthian, Columbia, S.C., for respondent.

OPINION

Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to decide whether a gun owner's acquittal on criminal charges involving firearms precludes a subsequent in rem forfeiture proceeding against those same firearms.

I

A

On January 20, 1977, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms seized a cache of firearms from the home of Patrick Mulcahey. Mulcahey was subsequently indicted on charges that he had knowingly engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

Page 356

§ 922(a)(1). 1 At his criminal trial, Mulcahey admitted that he had no license to deal in firearms and that he had bought and sold firearms during the period set forth in the indictment. His defense was that he had been entrapped into making the illegal firearms transactions. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Following Mulcahey's acquittal of the criminal charges, the United States, pursuant to its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d),2 instituted thisin rem action for [104 S.Ct. 1102] forfeiture of the seized firearms. 3 On the basis of his earlier acquittal, Mulcahey asserted the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina struck Mulcahey's defenses, reasoning that an in rem forfeiture proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) is remedial in nature and is therefore properly characterized as

Page 357

a civil proceeding. 463 F.Supp. 365, 367 (1978). The District Court then concluded that "the firearms here in question were involved in, used or intended to be used in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1). Such firearms are rendered subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d), which forfeiture is hereby ordered." 511 F.Supp. 133, 139 (1980).

B

A divided United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed. 4 685 F.2d 913 (1982). The en banc majority relied upon two theories for its conclusion that the forfeiture proceeding against these firearms was barred by Mulcahey's prior acquittal, although it did not sharply distinguish between the two. Because the majority considered the § 924(d) forfeiture proceeding to be criminal and punitive in nature, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was barred by double jeopardy principles. Looking to Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886), as authority, the Court of Appeals also determined that the forfeiture action was barred by collateral estoppel, because it was based upon the same facts as the earlier criminal action. In dissent, four judges argued that neither collateral estoppel nor double jeopardy should preclude forfeiture proceedings brought under § 924(d). 685 F.2d at 918-919 (Winter, J., dissenting). We granted certiorari, 459 U.S. 1199, 103 S.Ct. 1181, 75 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983), and we reverse.

II

In Coffey v. United States, supra, this Court held that a forfeiture action brought against certain distilling equipment was barred by the owner's prior acquittal on charges of removing and concealing distilled spirits with the intent to defraud the revenue. The Court stated that:

Page 358

"[W]here an issue raised as to the existence of the act or fact denounced has been tried in a criminal proceeding, instituted by the United States, and a judgment of acquittal has been rendered in favor of a particular person, that judgment is conclusive in favor of such person, on the subsequent trial of a suit in rem by the United States, where, as against him, the existence of the same act or fact is the matter in issue, as a cause for the forfeiture of the property prosecuted in such suit in rem. It is urged as a reason for not allowing such effect to the judgment, that the acquittal in the criminal case may have taken place because of the rule requiring guilt to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that, on the same evidence, on the question of preponderance of proof, there might be a verdict for the United States, in the suit in rem. Nevertheless, the fact or act has been put in issue and determined against the United States; [104 S.Ct. 1103] and all that is imposed by the statute, as a consequence of guilt, is a punishment therefor. There could be no new trial of the criminal prosecution after the acquittal in it; and a subsequent trial of the civil suit amounts to substantially the same thing, with a difference only on the consequences following a judgment adverse to the claimant." Id., 116 U.S., at 443, 6 S.Ct., at 440.

Although the language quoted above incorporates notions of both collateral estoppel and double jeopardy, the Coffey Court did not identify the precise legal foundation for the rule of preclusion it announced. Perhaps for this reason, later decisions of this Court have reflected uncertainty as to the exact scope of the Coffey holding.

In Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 58 S.Ct. 630, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938), the Court considered the preclusive effect of a prior criminal acquittal on a subsequent action for a monetary penalty. The defendant taxpayer in Mitchell was acquitted of charges that he willfully attempted to evade and defeat the income tax by

Page 359

fraudulently misstating certain items on his income tax return. When the Commissioner of Internal Revenue then brought an action to recover a substantial monetary penalty for fraudulent avoidance of income tax, the taxpayer argued that the subsequent penalty action was barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the Coffey rule of preclusion.

This Court, speaking through Justice Brandeis, disagreed. Although the taxpayer argued and the Government conceded that the factual matters at issue in the penalty proceeding had been litigated and determined in the prior criminal action, the Court concluded that "[t]he difference in degree in the burden of proof in criminal and civil cases precludes application of the doctrine of res judicata." Id., at 397, 58...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Procedural issues.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 34 Nbr. 2, January 1997
    • January 1, 1997
    ...from prior criminal conviction during civil suit by investor against broker). See also United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 362 (1984) (allowing civil in rem forfeiture action despite prior criminal acquittal due to "difference in the relative burdens of (257.)......
  • The exclusion and detention of aliens: lessons from the lives of Ellen Knauff and Ignatz Mezei.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 143 Nbr. 4, April 1995
    • April 1, 1995
    ...These factors provide guidance, but they are neither exhaustive nor dispositive. See United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 365 & n.7 (1984), superseded by statute as stated in Cooper v. Greenwood, 904 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242,......
  • A License to Steal: The Forfeiture of Property.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 96 Nbr. 6, May 1998
    • May 1, 1998
    ...quotation marks omitted). (91.) The holding in Coffey was essentially overruled in United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361 (1984). And recently, in United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996), the Court held that successive civil forfeitures and criminal prosecuti......
  • Proposing a transactional approach to civil forfeiture reform.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 163 Nbr. 3, February - February 2015
    • February 1, 2015
    ...forfeitures, consistently concluding that the Clause does not apply to such actions because they do not impose punishment."). (142) 465 U.S. 354, 366 (1984) ("We hold that a gun owner's acquittal on criminal charges involving firearms does not preclude a subsequent in rem forfeitu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • Financial institutions fraud.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 49 Nbr. 2, March 2012
    • March 22, 2012
    ...that drug forfeiture statute was non-punitive for purposes of Excessive Fines Clause); United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 364 (1984) (recognizing forfeiture of dangerous or illegal contraband as remedial (372.) Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 333 n.8 (1998) (holding that ......
  • Procedural issues.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 33 Nbr. 3, March 1996
    • March 22, 1996
    ...during civil suit by investor against broker), cert. denied, 450 U.S.966 (1981). See also United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 362 (1984) (prior criminal acquittal did not bar civil in rem forfeiture action due to "difference in the relative burdens of proof&qu......
  • Procedural issues.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 34 Nbr. 2, January 1997
    • January 1, 1997
    ...from prior criminal conviction during civil suit by investor against broker). See also United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 362 (1984) (allowing civil in rem forfeiture action despite prior criminal acquittal due to "difference in the relative burdens of (257.)......
  • ARE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES DESERVED?
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 95 Nbr. 3, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898). (68) See Kaiser, supra note 4, at 355-56 (referencing how, in United States v. One Assortment of 89Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984), the Court did not look at "substantive effects" at all). Also, the Supreme Court has considered collateral consequences when......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Registration revocations, restrictions, denials, reinstatements: Krishna-Iyer, Jayam, M.D.,
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 01, 2006
    • August 22, 2006
    ...to trial and been acquitted, DEA could still have sought to revoke her registration. See United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 359- 62 (1984). As the Court explained therein: ``an acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely ......
  • Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition-Reporting Theft or Loss of Firearms in Transit (2007R-9P)
    • United States
    • Federal Register January 12, 2016
    • January 12, 2016
    ...disposition, and misuse of firearms in service of public safety objectives. See United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 364 (1984) (``In enacting the 1968 gun control legislation, Congress was concerned with the widespread traffic in firearms and with their general ava......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT