Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Brian Brophil
Citations: 96 F.3d 31; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24038; 1996 WL 514582Docket: 95-1708
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; September 12, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s judgment that vacated the conviction of Brian Brophil for marijuana manufacture under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) on double jeopardy grounds. The district court had previously ruled that a civil forfeiture of Brophil's property, conducted under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) due to its use in marijuana manufacture, constituted punishment, thus invoking the Double Jeopardy Clause. However, the appellate court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Ursery, which clarified that civil forfeitures under § 881(a)(7) do not amount to "punishment" for double jeopardy purposes. The Ursery ruling distinguished in rem civil forfeitures as remedial, with goals of deterrence that are civil in nature rather than punitive. The Court indicated that Congress's designation of a forfeiture as civil creates a presumption against double jeopardy claims unless compelling evidence suggests it is punitive. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that Brophil's prosecution did not violate double jeopardy principles due to the earlier civil forfeiture. The court ordered the reinstatement of both the indictment against Brophil and his conviction.