Showing 1 - 2 of 2 results
United States v. Valdez
Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Argument: The panel’s decision is inconsistent with background principles of forfeiture, congressional intent, Supreme Court precedent, and constitutional limitations. Neither Section 924(D) nor Section 853(P) permits entry of a money judgment as “substitute property” subject to forfeiture
Bane v. United States
Brief for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant and Reversal
Argument: Honeycutt pronounced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review. Honeycutt changed the landscape of criminal forfeiture. Honeycutt’s rule is substantive and therefore applies retroactively on collateral review. A criminal forfeiture order entered without authority of law is a fundamental error warranting extraordinary relief. The government’s seizure of property without lawful authority violates fundamental principles of due process. Forfeiture orders based on joint and several liability violate the Eighth Amendment when the defendant received no proceeds from the crime. Permitting a forfeiture order entered without legal authority to stand serves no legitimate public interest.