Court Opinion

ID: 9490386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:42:06.901231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:04.255559
License: Public Domain

HALL, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part.
Judge Kozinski’s disquisition in Part III on the constitutionality of burden-shifting in forfeiture proceedings is entirely dictum. Moreover, it is dictum on an important constitutional issue, thus violating our rule against reaching constitutional questions unless we must in order to dispose of a ease. E.g., Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846, 854, 105 S.Ct. 2992, 2996, 86 L.Ed.2d 664 (1985); Erickson v. United States, 976 F.2d 1299, 1301 (9th Cir.1992). I find the' inclusion of Part III particularly odd in light of the fact that the parties did not raise the issue. ■ Appellant did not “challenge” the forfeiture statute’s burden-shifting procedure, opinion at 427, he merely responded to our order that the parties be prepared to discuss the issue at oral argument. We ought not to feel “constrained to answer the government’s assertion” that the statute has been held constitutional, opinion at 427-28, when it did not ask the question in the first place.
Accordingly, I concur in all but Part III of the opinion.