From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 27, 1971
453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971)

Summary

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 proceeding so that the judgment of acquittal foreclosed the forfeiture proceeding.

Summary of this case from Standlee v. Rhay

Opinion

No. 26269.

December 27, 1971.

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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before CHAMBERS and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.

Hon. Fred M. Taylor, United States District Court Judge, Boise, Idaho, sitting by designation.


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.


Summaries of

United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 27, 1971
453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971)

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 proceeding so that the judgment of acquittal foreclosed the forfeiture proceeding.

Summary of this case from Standlee v. Rhay
Case details for

United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ONE 1967 CADILLAC EL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 27, 1971

Citations

453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S

The prosecution against Rogers was dropped before trial. Thus no collateral estoppel arose regarding the…

United States v. Kismetoglu

PER CURIAM: Relying on the court's opinion in United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9th…