Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings by published opinion. Judge HAMILTON wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINS and Judge LUTTIG joined.
OPINION
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge:
In this consolidated appeal, the appellants, Tyrone Greenfield (Greenfield) and Kenneth Wild (Wild), appeal from the judgment entered by the district court in their respective cases. In these consolidated appeals, we resolve whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing a juror to take notes during trial and whether the forfeiture of
Wild’s house pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2) violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. For reasons that follow, we affirm the appellants’ convictions, but vacate the forfeiture of Wild’s house and remand for further proceedings.
I
This case involved a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base (crack) in Arlington, Virginia from early October 1992 until February 1993. Greenfield, the leader of the conspiracy, was the source of crack distributed by others, including Jean Hopkins (Hopkins).
Generally, Greenfield broke down larger amounts of crack and was assisted by Hopkins in the cutting, packaging, and distribution of crack.
It was established at trial that Hopkins made her house available to street dealers for the distribution of crack. Sometime in December 1992, Greenfield and Hopkins began to use Wild’s house for the distribution and storage of crack. There was no evidence introduced at trial that Wild ever sold or actively participated in the sale of crack; he was a crack addict who received a kickback, in the form of crack, from Greenfield and Hopkins for allowing them to use his house to store and distribute crack. Generally, the transactions at Wild’s house occurred at a table in his basement. During the transactions taking place in his basement, sometimes Wild would be present, though not at the table. On other occasions, Wild was given a quantity of crack to smoke in exchange for leaving the basement while Greenfield and Hopkins conducted a drug transaction. Greenfield and Hopkins would also conduct crack transactions in an upstairs bedroom, leaving Wild in the basement.
The evidence of distribution from Wild’s house from December 1992 to January 1993 was well established. Calvin Brown testified that he went to Wild’s house on two occasions to purchase crack. On the first occasion, Brown purchased $250 worth of crack, and on the second, $500 worth of crack.
Henry Cook testified that from mid-December 1992 until January 1993, he went to Wild’s house fifteen to twenty times per week to obtain crack.
On March 23,1993, a Grand Jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia returned an eight-count indictment charging Greenfield, Hopkins, and Wild with various violations of federal statutes, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute fifty grams or more of crack. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (count one). Count two of the indictment charged Wild with making a building available for the storing, distributing, and using of crack. 21 U.S.C. § 856(a). Count five charged Greenfield with using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Count six charged Greenfield with possession of crack with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count seven charged Greenfield with distribution of crack.
Id.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2), the indictment contained an
in personam
criminal forfeiture count, which sought the forfeiture of Wild’s house.
At trial, the government’s evidence consisted of the testimony of government undercover agents, cooperating witnesses, and physical evidence seized from Wild’s house during a search on February 25, 1993. Following a three-day trial, Greenfield was found guilty on all counts. Wild was found guilty on count two and not guilty on count one; the jury also returned a special verdict, finding that Wild’s house “was used, or intended to
be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or facilitate the commission of the violation charged in Count 2.” (R. Doc. No. 20).
On June 21, 1993, in accordance with the jury’s special verdict, the district court ordered that Wild’s house, valued at
$180,000,
be
forfeited.
On July 1,1993, relying on
Austin v. United States,
— U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), which was decided by the Supreme Court on June 28, 1993, Wild moved to stay the execution of the forfeiture order, asserting that the forfeiture amounted to an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, “finding no basis to stay execution of the criminal order of forfeiture.” (R. Doc. No. 30). A final decree of forfeiture was entered on September 14, 1993.
Greenfield was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 420 months, and Wild was sentenced to twenty-one months’ imprisonment.
The appellants noted a timely appeal.
II
The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion in permitting a single juror to take notes and, as a result, there exists a strong likelihood that an unjust verdict was reached. At trial, counsel for Greenfield noticed that one juror was taking notes and objected to the juror’s taking notes:
Your Honor, I notice one of the jurors appears to be taking notes. I don’t know how Your Honor feels about that but I would object to that because if not all of them are taking notes I would be — it would be my position that the jurors would tend to rely on the person who is [taking notes] during deliberations.
(J.A. 176). The district court then instructed the jury:
Counsel brought to my attention that one of the jurors is taking notes. That is all right. I caution you about notes, however. The person who has notes in the jury room wields a big stick. The jurors should rely on their own recollection, not somebody else’s notes. Indeed, the juror who is taking notes should rely on her recollection, not her notes. I don’t mean that you can’t take notes.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings by published opinion. Judge HAMILTON wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINS and Judge LUTTIG joined.
OPINION
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge:
In this consolidated appeal, the appellants, Tyrone Greenfield (Greenfield) and Kenneth Wild (Wild), appeal from the judgment entered by the district court in their respective cases. In these consolidated appeals, we resolve whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing a juror to take notes during trial and whether the forfeiture of
Wild’s house pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2) violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. For reasons that follow, we affirm the appellants’ convictions, but vacate the forfeiture of Wild’s house and remand for further proceedings.
I
This case involved a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base (crack) in Arlington, Virginia from early October 1992 until February 1993. Greenfield, the leader of the conspiracy, was the source of crack distributed by others, including Jean Hopkins (Hopkins).
Generally, Greenfield broke down larger amounts of crack and was assisted by Hopkins in the cutting, packaging, and distribution of crack.
It was established at trial that Hopkins made her house available to street dealers for the distribution of crack. Sometime in December 1992, Greenfield and Hopkins began to use Wild’s house for the distribution and storage of crack. There was no evidence introduced at trial that Wild ever sold or actively participated in the sale of crack; he was a crack addict who received a kickback, in the form of crack, from Greenfield and Hopkins for allowing them to use his house to store and distribute crack. Generally, the transactions at Wild’s house occurred at a table in his basement. During the transactions taking place in his basement, sometimes Wild would be present, though not at the table. On other occasions, Wild was given a quantity of crack to smoke in exchange for leaving the basement while Greenfield and Hopkins conducted a drug transaction. Greenfield and Hopkins would also conduct crack transactions in an upstairs bedroom, leaving Wild in the basement.
The evidence of distribution from Wild’s house from December 1992 to January 1993 was well established. Calvin Brown testified that he went to Wild’s house on two occasions to purchase crack. On the first occasion, Brown purchased $250 worth of crack, and on the second, $500 worth of crack.
Henry Cook testified that from mid-December 1992 until January 1993, he went to Wild’s house fifteen to twenty times per week to obtain crack.
On March 23,1993, a Grand Jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia returned an eight-count indictment charging Greenfield, Hopkins, and Wild with various violations of federal statutes, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute fifty grams or more of crack. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (count one). Count two of the indictment charged Wild with making a building available for the storing, distributing, and using of crack. 21 U.S.C. § 856(a). Count five charged Greenfield with using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Count six charged Greenfield with possession of crack with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count seven charged Greenfield with distribution of crack.
Id.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2), the indictment contained an
in personam
criminal forfeiture count, which sought the forfeiture of Wild’s house.
At trial, the government’s evidence consisted of the testimony of government undercover agents, cooperating witnesses, and physical evidence seized from Wild’s house during a search on February 25, 1993. Following a three-day trial, Greenfield was found guilty on all counts. Wild was found guilty on count two and not guilty on count one; the jury also returned a special verdict, finding that Wild’s house “was used, or intended to
be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or facilitate the commission of the violation charged in Count 2.” (R. Doc. No. 20).
On June 21, 1993, in accordance with the jury’s special verdict, the district court ordered that Wild’s house, valued at
$180,000,
be
forfeited.
On July 1,1993, relying on
Austin v. United States,
— U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), which was decided by the Supreme Court on June 28, 1993, Wild moved to stay the execution of the forfeiture order, asserting that the forfeiture amounted to an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, “finding no basis to stay execution of the criminal order of forfeiture.” (R. Doc. No. 30). A final decree of forfeiture was entered on September 14, 1993.
Greenfield was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 420 months, and Wild was sentenced to twenty-one months’ imprisonment.
The appellants noted a timely appeal.
II
The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion in permitting a single juror to take notes and, as a result, there exists a strong likelihood that an unjust verdict was reached. At trial, counsel for Greenfield noticed that one juror was taking notes and objected to the juror’s taking notes:
Your Honor, I notice one of the jurors appears to be taking notes. I don’t know how Your Honor feels about that but I would object to that because if not all of them are taking notes I would be — it would be my position that the jurors would tend to rely on the person who is [taking notes] during deliberations.
(J.A. 176). The district court then instructed the jury:
Counsel brought to my attention that one of the jurors is taking notes. That is all right. I caution you about notes, however. The person who has notes in the jury room wields a big stick. The jurors should rely on their own recollection, not somebody else’s notes. Indeed, the juror who is taking notes should rely on her recollection, not her notes. I don’t mean that you can’t take notes. I just think that it is your recollection, not the notes that count.
(J.A. 177).
“Note taking by jurors is a matter of discretion with the district court.”
United States v. Polowichak,
783 F.2d 410, 413 (4th Cir.1986). In
Polowichak,
we cautioned that “if jurors are permitted to take notes, they should be instructed that their notes are not evidence and should not take precedence over the jurors’ independent recollections of the proceedings.”
Id.
We concluded further that the failure to give jurors an instruction, when none was requested, did not amount to plain error warranting reversal and a new trial.
Id.
Pursuant to
Polowichak,
it was clearly within the district court’s discretion to allow one juror, as well as all of the jurors, to take notes; and the district court gave an appropriate instruction on the use of such notes. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing one juror to take notes.
See also United States v. Oppon,
863 F.2d 141, 148-49 (1st Cir.1988) (district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing one juror to take notes where the district court “advised the juror to be careful not to miss anything” and “instructed the jury on the proper use of notes during deliberations”).
Ill
We turn to Wild’s contention that the
in personam
criminal forfeiture of his house
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2) violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. He requests that we vacate the order of forfeiture and “remand the case to the district court for a hearing to determine whether the forfeiture penalty suffered by [him] is disproportionate to the seriousness of his offense.” Appellants’ Brief at 31.
The Eighth Amendment provides: “Excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. “The Excessive Fines Clause limits the Government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense.”
Austin,
— U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 2805 (citation and internal quotes omitted);
see also Browning-Ferris Indus. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.,
492 U.S. 257, 267, 109 S.Ct. 2909, 2916, 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989) (noting that Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment limits “the ability of the sovereign to use its prosecutorial power, including the power to collect fines, for improper ends”).
Recently, in
United States v. Chandler,
36 F.3d 358 (4th Cir.1994), relying on Justice Sealia’s concurrence in
Austin,
this court rejected the notion that proportionality is even a factor to be considered in determining whether an
in rem
forfeiture amounts to an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment and developed an “instrumentality test” for determining whether a particular
in rem
forfeiture amounts to an excessive fine.
Id.
at 365-66.
This court held that to sustain a forfeiture, a “court must be able to conclude, under the totality of circumstances, that the property was a substantial and meaningful instrumentality in the commission of the offense, or would have been, had the offensive conduct been carried out as intended.”
Id.
at 365. In making this determination, courts are required to consider three factors under the instrumentality test: “(1) the nexus between the offense and the property and the extent of the property’s role in the offense, (2) the role and culpability of the owner, and (3) the possibility of separating offending property that can readily be separated from the remainder.”
Id.
This court cautioned that no factor is dispositive.
Id.
When examining the first factor, the district court should examine:
(1) whether the use of the property in the offense was deliberate and planned or merely incidental and fortuitous; (2) whether the property was important to the success of the illegal activity; (3) the time during which the property was illegally used and the spacial extent of its use; (4) whether its illegal use was an isolated event or had been repeated; and (5) whether the purpose of acquiring, maintaining or using the property was to carry out the offense.
Id.
Applying this test in
Chandler,
this court concluded that the
in rem
forfeiture of Chandler’s thirty-three acre farm did not amount to an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
Id.
at 366.
In this case, the government urges us to follow
Chandler
and hold that the
in per-sonam
criminal forfeiture of Wild’s house pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2) does not amount to an excessive fine. Wild, while not agreeing with
Chandler,
attempts to distinguish it on the basis that this case is not an
in rem
forfeiture case, but rather an
in personam
criminal forfeiture case. With this distinction in mind, Wild posits that the value of the property subject to forfeiture is a factor in determining whether an
in person-am
criminal forfeiture is excessive, and his position has support.
See, e.g., United States v. Libretti,
38 F.3d 523, 531 (10th Cir.1994) (in determining whether an
in personam
criminal forfeiture is excessive, “courts must consider all factors”);
United States v. Alexander, 32 F.3d 1231,
1236 (8th Cir.1994) (in assessing excessiveness of
in personam
criminal forfeiture, court must consider, among other things, “the extent of the criminal activity and the quantum of property forfeited”);
United States v. Sarbello,
985 F.2d 716, 724 (3d Cir.1993) (exeessiveness inquiry in
in personam
criminal forfeitures requires the value of the property to be considered). We agree with Wild that, because this case involves an
in personam
criminal forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2),
Chandler
does not control the disposition of this case and the value of the property being forfeited is a factor to be considered in determining whether an
in per-sonam
criminal forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2) constitutes an excessive fine.
An
in personam
criminal forfeiture is an action against the person as distinguished from an
in rem
forfeiture which is an action against the property itself. In
in personam
criminal forfeitures, the person not the property is guilty of some offense. Here, the
in personam
criminal forfeiture sought by the government arises by virtue of the commission of an offense covered by 21 U.S.C. § 853(a) and the fact that the property was “used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of,” a violation covered by 21 U.S.C. § 853(a). 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2). The property is neither charged with nor convicted of an offense. The Supreme Court has explained, in
Alexander v. United States,
— U.S.-,-, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 2775-76, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993), that
in personam
criminal forfeitures are “clearly a form of monetary punishment no different, for Eighth Amendment purposes, from a traditional ‘fine.’ ” And “at the time of the drafting and ratification of the [Eighth] Amendment, the word ‘fine’ was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.”
Browning-Ferris Indus.,
492 U.S. at 265, 109 S.Ct. at 2915. Because an
in personam
criminal forfeiture is a form of monetary punishment assessed against a criminal defendant for the commission of some offense, it is clear that the excessiveness inquiry should focus, at least in part, on the value of the property being forfeited,
i.e.,
the amount of the fine. In other words, if an
in personam
criminal forfeiture is a fine, it follows that to determine whether the fine is “excessive,” the amount of the fine,
i.e.,
the value of the property being forfeited, must by necessity be considered.
We cannot accept the government’s invitation to apply
Chandler
to this case for several reasons. First, to do so would ignore the Supreme Court’s admonition in
Alexander
that
in personam
criminal forfeitures are the equivalent of monetary punishments assessed against criminal defendants for the commission of some offense. Second, even Justice Scalia’s concurrence in
Austin,
which this court so heavily relied upon in
Chandler,
noted that the
in rem
excessiveness inquiry differs from the inquiry applied to cases of monetary fines and
in personam
criminal forfeitures because
in rem
civil forfeitures do not concern: “the appropriate value of the penalty in relation to the committed offense,
but [rather] ... what property has been ‘tainted’ by unlawful use, to which issue the value of the property is irrelevant.”
Austin,
— U.S. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 2815 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
Having reached the conclusion that the value of the property is an indispensable factor to be considered in an
in personam
criminal forfeiture, we are hesitant, in light of the dearth of Supreme Court guidance in this area, to formulate a bright-line test governing whether a particular
in personam
criminal forfeiture amounts to an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, in
Alexander,
the Court neither set forth a test nor delineated factors that a court should consider in an
in personam
criminal forfeiture excessiveness inquiry. The Court did state, however, that the extent and duration of a defendant’s criminal activities should be considered.
Alexander,
— U.S. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 2776. (“It is in light of the extensive criminal activities which petitioner apparently conducted through this racketeering enterprise over a substantial period of time that the question of whether or not the forfeiture was ‘excessive’ must be considered.”).
Despite this lack of guidance, we believe we can set forth a general principle to guide district courts in resolving excessiveness challenges to
in personam
criminal forfeitures pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a). Section 853(a) provides:
(a) Any person convicted of a violation of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter punishable by imprisonment for more than one year shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law—
(1) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation;
(2) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation; and
(3) in the case of a person convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of section 848 of this title, the person shall forfeit, in addition to any property described in paragraph (1) or (2), any of his interest in, claims against, and property or contractual rights affording a source of control over, the continuing criminal enterprise.
Section 853(a) thus permits the
in personam
criminal forfeiture of property in three distinct situations.
The first is “property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained ... as the result” of the violation covered by 21 U.S.C. § 853(a). 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1). The second is property “used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or facilitate the commission of’ an offense covered by § 853(a). 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2). The third pertains to a
defendant who is convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(3). In that instance, in addition to property forfeited under 21 U.S.C. §§ 853(a)(2) and (3), the defendant shall forfeit “any of his interest in, claims against, and property or contractual rights affording a source of control over, the continuing criminal enterprise.” An excessiveness challenge can never be mounted against an
in person-am
criminal forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) because the forfeiture of property constituting, or derived from, proceeds of an illegal activity can never be “excessive” in a constitutional sense.
See Austin,
— U.S. at -n. 14, 113 S.Ct. at 2812 n. 14 (“[A] fine that serves purely remedial purposes cannot be considered ‘excessive’ in any event.”);
see also United States v. Alexander,
32 F.3d at 1236 (“Forfeiture of proceeds cannot be considered punishment, and thus, subject to the excessive fines clause, as it simply parts the owner from the fruits of the criminal activity.”). On the other hand,
in personam
criminal forfeitures pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 853(a)(2) and (3), which operate on the premise that the property being forfeited was obtained independent of any illegal activity, are subject to an excessiveness inquiry. That inquiry essentially asks whether the value of the property being forfeited is an excessive monetary punishment in relation to the offense giving rise to the forfeiture. In other words, the excessiveness inquiry turns on whether the government can exact a fine in the amount of the forfeiture in light of the defendant’s conduct and the offense committed. This inquiry beckons a comparison of the value of the property being forfeited to the gravity of the offense committed by the defendant and the nature and extent of the defendant’s activities. In our view, only in rare situations will an
in personam
criminal forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2) be excessive in a constitutional sense, and only in exceedingly rare situations will an
in personam
criminal forfeiture of property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(3) be disturbed.
In resolving the exeessiveness issue, a district court, in its discretion, may choose to hear additional evidence. Along a similar vein, to assist appellate review, a district court should make clear its findings and reasoning supporting its resolution of the exces-siveness issue.
In this case, the district court neither made findings nor set forth its reasoning for rejecting Wild’s challenge to the
in person-am
criminal forfeiture on excessiveness grounds. While it is true that this court applied the instrumentality test to the record before it in
Chandler,
we believe that, in this case, it is more appropriate to allow the district court to conduct the fact-intensive excessiveness inquiry in the first instance.
Alexander,
— U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 2776 (remanding for excessiveness analysis);
Austin,
— U.S. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 2812 (lower court should consider in first instance whether “forfeiture is constitutionally ‘excessive’ ”). Accordingly, we will vacate the forfeiture order and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
IV
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the appellants’ convictions, but vacate the forfeiture of Wild’s house and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.