Court Opinion

ID: 9487416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:16:01.587704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:15.441000
License: Public Domain

*496RYMER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I fully concur in all of the opinion but Part VI on double jeopardy. I concur in that Part only because I am constrained to follow United States v. $405,089.23 in U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994). Otherwise, I believe that United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), controls, and that while forfeitures under § 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) may always constitute punishment, they are not always only punishment. In my judgment Austin v. United States, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), doesn’t say anything to the contrary as it was concerned simply with whether forfeiture serves in part to punish. The result I feel obliged to reach effectively transforms the “rare case” where Halper contemplates that double jeopardy will apply to civil proceedings, 490 U.S. at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902, into a commonplace occurrence, and may have other consequences for parallel civil and criminal proceedings which I find it difficult to believe that either the Congress or the Court had in mind. Nevertheless, I must concur.