United States v. Guy Jerome Ursery (518 U.S. 267)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 24, 1996 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 518 U.S. 267 · 116 S. Ct. 2135
- Decided
- June 24, 1996
- Term
- October Term 1995
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. In separate cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the Government from both punishing a defendant for a criminal offense and forfeiting his property for that same offense in a separate civil proceeding. We consolidated those cases for our review, and now reverse. These civil forfeitures (and civil forfeitures generally), we hold, do not constitute “punishment” for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. I No. 95-345: Michigan Police found marijuana growing adjacent to respondent Guy Ursery’s house, and discovered marijuana seeds, stems, stalks, and a grow light within the house. The United States instituted civil forfeiture proceedings against the house, alleging that the property was ' subject to forfeiture under 84 Stat. 1276, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 881(a)(7), because it had been used for several years to facilitate the unlawful processing and distribution of a controlled substance. Ursery ultimately paid the United States $13,250 to settle the forfeiture claim in full. Shortly before the settlement was consummated, Ursery was indicted for manufacturing marijuana, in violation of § 841(a)(1). A jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to 63 months in prison. The Court of Appeals…
Excerpt of a 46,432-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.