Court lacks jurisdiction in Rule 41(e) return of property action to determine whether disputed property was properly named in forfeiture proceeding
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, No. 02-2340, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Jul. 5, 2005)(New Mexico). Appeal of district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for return of property brought under Rule 41(e) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. HELD: District court properly found it lacked jurisdiction in Rule 41(e) action over property that government contended had been judicially forfeited. Defendant’s claim for return of property brought under Rule 41(e) is in essence an attack on sufficiency of forfeiture proceedings. Such attack must be brought in Rule 60(b) motion. Court of appeals and district court lack jurisdiction to decide in Rule 41(e) equity proceeding whether certain disputed property was properly named in government initiated forfeiture proceeding. Read the opinion here. |
Comments on "Court lacks jurisdiction in Rule 41(e) return of property action to determine whether disputed property was properly named in forfeiture proceeding"