Court Opinion

ID: 9468818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:24:21.593236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:04.169654
License: Public Domain

WINTER, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
In this appeal, the claimant contends that the forfeiture is barred by his acquittal on the earlier criminal charges. This conclusion is required, he asserts, by both the double jeopardy clause and the doctrine of res judicata because the forfeiture is criminal in nature. Even if the forfeiture is deemed to be civil in nature, he continues, it is barred by the doctrine of collateral estop-pel. Based upon its reading of Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886), the majority holds that the forfeiture is barred. I concede that Coffey holds that a subsequent criminal forfeiture is barred by an earlier acquittal on criminal charges arising out of the same facts and that this aspect of Coffey is viable today. I think, however, that more recent Supreme Court decisions compel the conclusion that the forfeiture in the present case is civil and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable because the standards of proof in criminal and civil proceedings are different. I therefore respectfully dissent.
I.
In a pair of early cases, the Supreme Court held that nominally civil penalty proceedings brought subsequent to criminal proceedings based on the same allegations were barred by the double jeopardy clause. See United States v. Ulrici, 102 U.S. 612, 26 L.Ed. 249 (1881); United States v. Chouteau, 102 U.S. 603, 26 L.Ed. 246 (1881). And in Coffey, the Supreme Court ignored the double jeopardy argument but nonetheless held that a subsequent forfeiture proceeding was barred, relying upon some non-constitutional doctrine of preclusion. From a reading of Coffey, one cannot be certain whether or not the Court deemed the forfeiture proceeding to be criminal in nature, and thus whether the decision was based on res judicata (if so) or on collateral estoppel (if not). See 1B J. Moore & T. Currier, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 418[3], at 2855 & n.13 (2d ed. 1980).
It is commonly asserted that a criminal acquittal cannot collaterally estop a contrary finding on any issues in a later civil proceeding because of the differing standards of proof involved. See, e.g., 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4474, at 757 (1981). Logically, the fact that X was not shown beyond a reasonable doubt does not rule out the possibility that X can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. To the extent that the Coffey decision rested on collateral estoppel (i.e., to the extent that the Court held that the forfeiture proceeding was barred even if civil in nature), the Court was rejecting this standard of proof argument.
Subsequent Supreme Court cases, however, interpreted Coffey as being based on a belief that the forfeiture there at issue — a forfeiture of illegal liquor — was criminal in nature. See Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 405-06, 58 S.Ct. 630, 636, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938); Murphy v. United States, 272 U.S. *211630, 631-32, 47 S.Ct. 218, 71 L.Ed. 446 (1926); Stone v. United States, 167 U.S. 178, 186-87, 17 S.Ct. 778, 781, 42 L.Ed. 127 (1897). And in all three of these cases, the Court very clearly indicated that if the forfeiture proceeding is civil in nature, the standard of proof argument, by itself, is enough to defeat any resort to collateral estoppel. See Helvering v. Mitchell, supra, 303 U.S. at 397, 58 S.Ct. at 632 (using “res judicata” in the broad sense, encompassing collateral estoppel); Murphy v. United States, supra, 272 U.S. at 632-33, 47 S.Ct. at 219; Stone v. United States, supra, 167 U.S. at 188, 17 S.Ct. at 782. Indeed, the rejection of the collateral estoppel argument was so complete that the petitioners in United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 63 S.Ct. 379, 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943), and Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 148, 76 S.Ct. 219, 100 L.Ed. 149 (1956), did not even press it, confining themselves instead to arguing that the subsequent proceeding was criminal in nature. The collateral estoppel argument was raised in One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232, 93 S.Ct. 489, 34 L.Ed.2d 438 (1972), but the Court rejected it on two alternative grounds. First, the Court stated that the criminal proceeding involved an issue of intent not present in the forfeiture proceeding. Id. at 234-35, 93 S.Ct. at 491-92. Second, and more important for our purposes, the Court stated that the difference in the standards of proof in the two proceedings precluded application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Id. at 235, 93 S.Ct. at 492.
Thus, it can be said today that “[pjrob-lems arise only when it is asserted that a nominally civil action brought by the government involves an element of punishment that runs afoul of double jeopardy principles.” 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, supra, § 4474, at 749. Every time the Supreme Court has faced this double jeopardy question since Coffey, it has deemed the later proceeding to be civil in nature and thus upheld the forfeiture or penalty. See One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, supra, 409 U.S. at 235-37, 93 S.Ct. at 492-93; Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, supra, 350 U.S. at 151-52, 76 S.Ct. at 221; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, supra, 317 U.S. at 548-52, 63 S.Ct. at 386-88; Helvering v. Mitchell, supra, 303 U.S. at 398-405, 58 S.Ct. at 632-636; Murphy v. United States, supra, 272 U.S. at 631-32, 47 S.Ct. at 218; Stone v. United States, supra, 167 U.S. at 187-88, 17 S.Ct. at 781-82. The same result has been reached in the clear majority of lower court decisions addressing the question. See cases cited in 1B J. Moore & T. Currier, supra, ¶ 418[3] (2d ed. 1980 & 1980-81 Cum. Supp.).1
Marcus is a good example of the Supreme Court’s handling of the question. There, the Court held that a penalty proceeding for defrauding the government by collusive bidding did not violate the guarantee against double jeopardy even though the defendants had been charged and convicted for a crime based on the same allegations. Relying upon the general principles discussed in Mitchell, which held that Congress may impose both a criminal and civil sanction in respect to the same act or omission, the Court said that the issue in each case was a statutory one — was the forfeiture or penalty criminal or remedial? The penalty in Marcus was held to be civil — and therefore constitutionally permissible — because its purpose was to reimburse the government for monies of which it had been defrauded.
One Lot developed this concept further. In that case an acquitted smuggler contended that a nominally civil proceeding brought for the forfeiture of the allegedly *212smuggled goods was actually criminal, and thus prohibited by the double jeopardy clause. The Court held that it was not a violation of the double jeopardy clause to punish a wrongdoer both criminally and civilly, and that the forfeiture was a civil proceeding because its purpose was to aid in the enforcement of tariff regulations by preventing smuggled merchandise from circulating in the United States.
III.
One Lot, in my view, is controlling here. The forfeiture statute here, 18 U.S.C. § 924(d), was manifestly designed to aid in the enforcement of gun control laws by preventing the circulation of firearms which had been illegally obtained. One Lot thus compels the conclusion that the forfeiture at issue here is civil in nature,2 so that the double jeopardy and res judicata claims must be rejected. It matters not, despite the majority’s views, that the necessary allegations in the criminal proceeding and the forfeiture proceeding were identical. One Lot also compels the conclusion that the difference in the standards of proof in the two proceedings obviates the collateral es-toppel claim.3
The two courts that have addressed the precise question presented in this case have stated that the § 924(d) forfeiture proceeding is not barred. See Glup v. United States, 523 F.2d 557 (8 Cir. 1975) (dictum); Epps v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 375 F.Supp. 345 (E.D.Tenn.1973), aff’d without opinion, 495 F.2d 1373 (6 Cir. 1974). The majority attempts to distinguish these two cases. As for Glup, the majority points out that there, unlike in the present case, different firearms were involved in the criminal proceeding than were involved in the forfeiture. This observation is correct, and that apparently renders the court’s discussion in Glup dictum. But, although dictum, the Eighth Circuit explicitly stated that § 924(d) forfeitures are civil in nature, thereby disposing of the double jeopardy and res judicata arguments, and also stated: “Even assuming, arguendo that the criminal trial and the forfeiture involved some of the same firearms, the collateral estoppel doctrine, which is at the core of the appellant’s present contention, does not apply.” 523 F.2d at 561. Not surprisingly, the reason the court gave for this last conclusion was the difference in the standards of proof involved in the two proceedings. Id. As for Epps, the majority notes that it fails to mention Coffey. But that is of no significance since Coffey, as I have already indicated, is inapposite.
IV.
In my view of the case, I am brought finally to claimant’s contention that the district court’s factual findings should be set aside on appeal. The government argues *213that the scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the district court abused its discretion. There is a dearth of authority on the question of the scope of review. I would be inclined to hold that the proper scope of review is the “not clearly erroneous” test of Rule 52, Fed.R.Civ.P., but I would find it unnecessary to decide the issue here, because I think that the district court’s findings pass either test.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

. Coffey has never, however, been overruled. Though Coffey has been sharply criticized, see cases cited in 1B J. Moore & T. Currier, supra, ¶ 418[3], at 2854 n.12 (2d ed. 1980), an occasional lower court decision follows it, deems a nominally civil forfeiture or penalty proceeding to be criminal in nature, and deems the forfeiture or penalty proceeding to be barred because a criminal proceeding had previously been brought, see cases cited in id. ¶ 418[3], at 2851 n.1, 2856 n.16 (2d ed. 1980 & 1980-81 Cum. Supp.). Most of these cases, like Coffey, dealt with illegal liquor.

. Many cases have held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies in § 924(d) forfeitures because they are civil in nature. See, e.g., United States v. Eighty-Six Firearms, 623 F.2d 643 (10 Cir. 1980); United States v. 1,922 Assorted Firearms, 330 F.Supp. 635 (E.D.Mo.1971); United States v. One Assortment of 12 Rifles, 313 F.Supp. 641 (N.D.Fla. 1970).

. This is the point on which the majority and I differ. The majority relies on the statement in One Lot that: “Collateral estoppel would bar a forfeiture under § 1497 if, in the earlier criminal proceeding, the elements of a § 1497 forfeiture had been resolved against the Government.” 409 U.S. at 234, 93 S.Ct. at 491. (citation omitted). The majority also relies on a footnote in One Lot in which the Court distinguished Coffey on the ground that the criminal proceeding and the forfeiture there involved identical allegations, rather than on the ground that the forfeiture there was criminal in nature. See id. at 235 n.5, 93 S.Ct. at 492 n.5. Viewed in isolation, these two snippets support the majority. But they cannot be read in a vacuum. In the course of the same discussion, the One Lot Court advanced the standard of proof argument as an independent ground for rejecting the invocation of collateral estoppel. See id. at 235, 93 S.Ct. at 492. Moreover, if the One Lot Court rejected the standard of proof argument, it broke with the explicit reasoning of a half-dozen cases decided by the Supreme Court since Coffey. One Lot contains not the slightest hint, however, that the Court thought that is what it was doing. The majority declines even to mention One Lot’s discussion of standards of proof or a single one of the Supreme Court cases that intervened between Coffey and One Lot.