Opinion ID: 4254138
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Forfeiture of Ryan’s computer

Text: Finally, Ryan argues that his computer should not have been forfeited based on a violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 32.2(b)(5)(A) requires that when a defendant’s case has been tried before a jury and the indictment states that the government is seeking forfeiture, the district court “must determine before the jury begins deliberating whether either party requests that the jury be retained to determine the forfeitability of specific property if it returns a guilty verdict.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(5)(A). If a party timely requests that the jury determine forfeiture, the government must submit a special verdict form listing the specific property to be forfeited and ask the jury “to determine whether the government proved the requisite nexus between the property and the offense … .” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(5)(B). The Rule does not indicate the consequences of the court’s failure to determine whether a party requests that the jury be retained. Here the Rule was clearly violated. Because Ryan made no objection at trial, however, he is entitled to have the forfeiture order vacated only if the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if the outcome would have been 8 No. 16-4048 different but for the error. Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016). The government argues that, because the jury found Ryan guilty of knowingly distributing the files found on his computer, the jury could not have concluded that there was no nexus between the computer and the offense. Therefore, the error did not affect the outcome. Generally, a jury’s guilty verdict alone is insufficient. The jury must specifically determine whether the government established the requisite nexus between the property and offense and return a special verdict form reflecting that finding. In many cases, such a finding is not necessary to find the defendant guilty. In this case, however, no reasonable juror could have found there was not a sufficient nexus between the property and the offense. There was no question in this case that the specific computer listed in the forfeiture order was the one used by Ryan containing the illegal files. Ryan himself testified that there was child pornography found on his computer and that it was the computer found in his house. (R. 52 at 35.) Therefore, the error was harmless.