United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado
| Decision Date | 27 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26269.,26269. |
| Citation | 453 F.2d 396 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE 1967 CADILLAC EL DORADO, SERIAL NO. H7135768, LICENSE NO. TVM 155, its tools and appurtenances, Leonar Dixon, real party in interest, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jonathan K. Golden (argued), Burton Marks, of Marks, Sherman & London, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.
Larry L. Dier, Asst. U.S. Atty., (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty. & Chief, Civil Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR,* District Judge.
Appellant Cadillac was forfeited on the ground that it had been used to facilitate transportation of illegally imported marihuana (19 U.S.C. § 1595a). The owner of the Cadillac had been tried and acquitted of the charge of transporting or facilitating the transportation of marihuana before the forfeiture proceeding had been commenced. (21 U.S.C. § 176a.) The facts upon which the charges against the owner were made were the same as those upon which the forfeiture proceeding depended.
In Coffey v. United States (1886) 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 cited with approval in Ashe v. Swenson (1970) 397 U.S. 436, 443 n. 7, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469, the Supreme Court held that a prior judgment of acquittal of the owner of property forecloses a proceeding to forfeit that property when the operative facts of both the criminal and the forfeiture proceedings are the same. The conclusion follows from the combined impact of collateral estoppel and the double jeopardy clause. (See also United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency (1971) 401 U.S. 715, 721-722, 91 S.Ct. 1041, 28 L.Ed.2d 434; McKeehan v. United States (6th Cir.1971) 438 F.2d 739, 746-747.)
The judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint.
* Hon. Fred M. Taylor, United States District Court Judge, Boise, Idaho, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, Serial No. 11602012072193
...case in the event of an acquittal. Cf. Coffey v. U. S., 116 U.S. 436, 442-43, 6 S.Ct. 437, 440, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886); U. S. v. One 1967 Cadillac, 453 F.2d 396 (C.A. 9, 1971).5 This rule, now embodied in 19 U.S.C. 1615, has been the law at least since the Act of July 31, 1789, 1 St. 29, 43-44......
-
Standlee v. Rhay
...its relation to Ashe v. Swenson, supra, were recently recognized by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971). In that case the Government had instituted forfeiture proceedings against an automobile allegedly used to tra......
-
Standlee v. Rhay
...by cases involving forfeiture proceedings instigated subsequent to acquittals in criminal proceedings. In United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9 Cir. 1971), this court held that the operative facts of a forfeiture proceeding were the same as those in a prior criminal ......
-
Group Director, GGD, B-198049
... ... B-198049 Comptroller General of the United States February 24, 1981 ... Subject: ... See United States ... v. One cadillac EL dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971); ... United ... ...
-
State and Federal Forfeiture of Property Used in Criminal Activity
...v. One 1965 Cadillac 2-Door Coupe, 260 F.Supp. 761 (W.D. Penn. 1966). 2601 40. U.S. v. One 1967 Cadillac Eldorado, Serial No. H7135768, 453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971); Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436 (1886); U.S. v. One 1956 Ford Fairlane Tudor Sedan, 272 F.2d 704 (10th Cir. 1959). But ......