F.E.A.R. Chronicles newsletter
volume 3 number 2 (March 1996)

While most of Washington was closed down due to snowstorms on January 11, 1996, the Supreme Court met behind closed doors and decided to review three more forfeiture cases. Two were double jeopardy/forfeiture cases U.S. v. $405,089.23, 1 and U.S. v. Ursery. 2 The "two Jeffs of double jeopardy"our FEAR coordinator for Washington state, Jeffrey Steinborn, and Jeffrey Finer (a brilliant legal mind who has contributed substantially to FEAR legal efforts) will be representing Wren in the $405,089.23 case.

$405,089.23 and Ursery were victories for forfeiture victims that the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to review and overturn. But the Supreme Court's decision to review the cases doesn't mean they will be overturned. The Court could go either way. Besides, all the concerned parties including the forfeiture claimants asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and 41 states filed an amicus brief also asking the Supreme Court to review these two cases. The confusion in the courts caused by inconsistent rulings among the federal circuits on the basic double jeopardy issue makes it urgent for the Supreme court to take up the issue as soon as possible, according to the amicus brief filed by 41 states and Puerto Rico.

The third case the Supreme Court decided to review on January 11, United States v. Real Property Located At Incline Village, involves the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which allows the court to civilly forfeit property in absentia if the property owner skips bail in a related criminal case. Brian Degen, a Swiss citizen, had relocated his family to Switzerland from the U.S. before he was indicted, and the U.S. failed in its attempt to extradite him from Switzerland for the drug crimes the Reno, Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office charged him with. The federal government filed a civil forfeiture complaint and seized most if not all of Degen's property in the U.S.. The Degens, through their lawyers, contested the forfeitures. The federal district court in Reno dismissed their claims to their property because Brian Degen had since been indicted, and had not voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the federal court in Reno.

The Incline Village forfeiture case is yet another product of the industry of Ciro Mancuso, a convicted drug kingpin turned informant, who traded testimony against his former lawyer, Patrick Hallinan of San Francisco, for a promised cut in his sentence. The Reno, Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office wound up with egg on their faces after the well-publicized trial of Hallinan ended in an acquittal on all counts. The same team of prosecutors that prosecuted Hallinan also prosecuted the Incline Village case.

ENDNOTES:

1 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1994), rehearing denied 56 F.3d 41 (1995).

2 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir., 1995). 3 47 F.3d 1511 (9th cir. 1995).