Alexander v. United States case brief summary
509 U.S. 544 (1993)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner criminal was convicted of violating obscenity laws and of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In addition to a prison term, the district court ordered petitioner to forfeit certain assets that were directly related to his racketeering activity. Petitioner challenged the forfeiture, arguing that it violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment I because the forfeiture effectively shut down his adult entertainment business and constituted a complete ban on his future expression of free speech. Petitioner also argued that the forfeiture violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment VIII as an excessive form of punishment.
DISCUSSION
The court vacated and remanded the appellate court's affirmance of the district court's forfeiture penalty against petitioner criminal for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The court held that although the forfeiture of petitioner's adult entertainment business did not violate U.S. Constitutional amend I as a prior restraint, a determination of whether the penalty was excessive was needed.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
509 U.S. 544 (1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner criminal filed an application
for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eight Circuit to challenge the district court's forfeiture of his
adult entertainment business as punishment for violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.CASE FACTS
Petitioner criminal was convicted of violating obscenity laws and of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In addition to a prison term, the district court ordered petitioner to forfeit certain assets that were directly related to his racketeering activity. Petitioner challenged the forfeiture, arguing that it violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment I because the forfeiture effectively shut down his adult entertainment business and constituted a complete ban on his future expression of free speech. Petitioner also argued that the forfeiture violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment VIII as an excessive form of punishment.
DISCUSSION
- The court held that the forfeiture did not constitute a "prior restraint" under U.S. Constitutional Amendment I because it did not forbid petitioner from engaging in any expressive activities in the future.
- The court found, however, that the appellate court failed to determine whether the forfeiture was excessive under U.S. Constitutional amend VIII.
- Thus, the court rejected the claim under U.S. Constitutional Amendment I, vacated the judgment, and remanded the claim for a determination of whether the penalty was excessive under U.S. Constitutional Amendment VIII.
The court vacated and remanded the appellate court's affirmance of the district court's forfeiture penalty against petitioner criminal for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The court held that although the forfeiture of petitioner's adult entertainment business did not violate U.S. Constitutional amend I as a prior restraint, a determination of whether the penalty was excessive was needed.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment