United States v. Ursery - Significance, Guy Ursery Grows His Own, Various Items, Emerald Cut Stones, And 89 Firearms
property petitioner sentencing double
Petitioner
United States
Respondent
Guy Ursery
Petitioner's Claim
That "in rem" civil property forfeiture proceedings, combined with a prison sentence for "manufacturing" marijuana, did not constitute double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Drew S. Days III, U.S. Solicitor General
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Lawrence Robbins, David Michael, Jeffry K. Finer
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 June 1996
Decision
That, according to a two-part test which found that the property forfeiture was civil and remedial, not criminal and punitive, the seizure of property did not constitute a "punishment" as such; hence, this was not a case of double jeopardy.
Sources
Carp, Robert A. Judicial Procedure in America. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1998.
Sources
"Report on Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy." United States Sentencing Commission, http://www.ussc.gov.
User Comments