Opinion ID: 660299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Double Jeopardy Under the Fifth Amendment

Text: 39 Emilio Delio contends that forfeiture of his property violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he has been previously punished in connection with his criminal conviction for the same gambling offense upon which this forfeiture suit is based. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Austin, supra, and United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), Delio claims that the forfeiture of this property constitutes punishment within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. 40 There is no question that the same conduct supports both Emilio Delio's criminal conviction and this civil forfeiture. But, the Court in Halper held that its decision does not prevent the Government from seeking and obtaining both the full civil penalty and the full range of statutorily authorized criminal penalties in the same proceeding. Id. at 450, 109 S.Ct. at 1903; see also United States v. Millan, 2 F.3d 17, 20 (2d Cir.1993) (discussing Halper and relevant cases for double jeopardy issue of multiple punishments). 41 Contrary to Delio's assertion that the forfeiture is barred by double jeopardy, we find that the circumstances of the simultaneous pursuit by the government of criminal and civil sanctions against Delio, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955, falls within the contours of a single, coordinated prosecution. Applying Sections 1955(a) and (d), the statute provides for imposition of both criminal and civil penalties. As in Millan, supra, there is no problem here that the government acted abusively by seeking a second punishment because of dissatisfaction with the punishment levied in the first action. 6 In Halper, the Court noted that [s]ince a legislature may authorize cumulative punishment under two statutes for a single course of conduct, the multiple-punishment inquiry in the context of a single proceeding focuses on whether the legislature actually authorized the cumulative punishment. 490 U.S. at 451 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. at 1903 n. 10. We therefore conclude that the civil forfeiture suit seeking Emilio Delio's property which was used in a gambling operation is not barred on the ground of double jeopardy.