Brief Bank II: indexed by issue

*****************************************************************************************************

Complaint - particularity (Rule E) [ 73 ]

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO THEIR MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Although it is true that the government is not required to trace each specific piece of

property to a specific drug transaction, forfeiture of estate (the automatic forfeiture of all

of a felons worldly possessions) was abolished by the U.S. Constitution. Even when the

government’s burden of proof was a mere probable cause, they had to show a nexus

for forfeiture of each item – which they neglected to do as to the contents seized with

the real estate. Only in cases where the only possible source of income is from drug

trafficking can this nexus arise by implication.

by Grantland, Brenda

U.S. v. AGUIRRE D.N.M. 92-0486-JC ( 2002 )

browser view: available BrowserView

Word Perfect available WordPerfect

MS_Word version: MSWord

RTF version: available RichTextFormat [ replysummjud ]

PDF version: PDF [ 171 ]

.

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO THEIR MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Strict particularity requirements for in rem forfeiture complaints, imposed by

Supplemental Rules C and E, is that if the complaint does not specifically describe

property then it has not brought the property within the in rem jurisdiction of the court,

therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to forfeit it.

by Grantland, Brenda

U.S. v. AGUIRRE D.N.M. 92-0486-JC ( 2002 )

browser view: available BrowserView

Word Perfect available WordPerfect

MS_Word version: MSWord

RTF version: available RichTextFormat [ replysummjud ]

PDF version: PDF [ 169 ]

.

Monday, June 19, 2006 Page 1 of 3


First Previous Next Last

Page 1.