Tuesday, April 19, 2005

US v. Nava

No. 03-30010 (4-18-05). This is a forfeiture matter, inwhich the 9th (Bybee) holds forfeiture of property was improper because thedefendant didn't own them; his daughter did. The 9th found that the focuswas on who owned the property, and that the gov't couldn't peek behind thesales to see if the defendant controlled them. Rymer, in dissent, arguesthat the gov't and court could.


Post a Comment

<< Home