No. 18-5311

Jack Reid v. United States

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2018-07-24
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure criminal-forfeiture criminal-procedure drug-forfeiture drug-offenses due-process eighth-amendment excessive-fines property-rights property-seizure sentencing standing substantial-connection
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment
Latest Conference: 2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether property subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. §853(a)(2) must have a substantial connection to the underlying criminal activity

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Under 21 U.S.C. §853 (a)(2), a person convicted of violating a federal drug law must forfeit to the government “any of the person’s property ; used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of such violation.” Is property subject to forfeiture under this section “only if [it has] some substantial connection to, or [is] instrumental in, the commission of the underlying criminal activity which the statute : seeks to prevent” or may property which “makes the prohibited conduct less difficult or more or less free from obstruction or hindrance” also be forfeited thereunder? Il. Whether the forfeiture of petitioner’s residences together with the imposition of a one million ; dollar money judgment is_ grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the petitioner’s offense in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment?

Docket Entries

2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-08-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-07-31
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-07-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 23, 2018)

Attorneys

Jack Reid
Jack Reid — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent