United States v. Meola

D. Oregon

United States v. Meola

891 F. Supp. 550, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9754

CourtDistrict Court, D. Oregon

DecidedMay 5, 1995

DocketNos. CR 89-278-FR, CV 94-1459-FR

StatusPublished

This text of 891 F. Supp. 550 (United States v. Meola) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Meola, 891 F. Supp. 550, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9754 (D. Or. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT E. JONES, District Judge:

The court has received defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence on the grounds of double jeopardy. The motion is now fully briefed and ready for decision without further hearing.

After considering the materials submitted by defendant I conclude that the motion must be denied. The facts set out by defendant establish that defendant was indicted and convicted in federal court, but that civil forfeiture proceedings were initiated by the State of Oregon through the City Attorney of the City of Salem. It is debatable whether jeopardy attached in the forfeiture proceeding because it was settled before defendant filed a formal claim. However, it is unnecessary to reach that issue. Under the doctrine of dual sovereignty, a forfeiture proceeding brought by a separate sovereign does not constitute double jeopardy, absent exceptional circumstances. United States v. Branum, 872 F.Supp. 801 (D.Or.1994). No facts appear in the record which could bring this case within the “Bartkus” exception to the dual sovereignty doctrine. Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959).

Accordingly, Meola’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT E. JONES, District Judge:

The court has received defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence on the grounds of double jeopardy. The motion is now fully briefed and ready for decision without further hearing.

After considering the materials submitted by defendant I conclude that the motion must be denied. The facts set out by defendant establish that defendant was indicted and convicted in federal court, but that civil forfeiture proceedings were initiated by the State of Oregon through the City Attorney of the City of Salem. It is debatable whether jeopardy attached in the forfeiture proceeding because it was settled before defendant filed a formal claim. However, it is unnecessary to reach that issue. Under the doctrine of dual sovereignty, a forfeiture proceeding brought by a separate sovereign does not constitute double jeopardy, absent exceptional circumstances. United States v. Branum, 872 F.Supp. 801 (D.Or.1994). No facts appear in the record which could bring this case within the “Bartkus” exception to the dual sovereignty doctrine. Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959).

Accordingly, Meola’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

891 F. Supp. 550, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-meola-ord-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack