Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02290-MRK

Document 53

Filed 02/07/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : ONE PARCEL OF PROPERTY : LOCATED AT 32 MEDLEY LANE, : BRANFORD, CONNECTICUT, : WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND : IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, AND : : Defendant. : : [CLAIMANTS: HAROLD E. VON HOFE, : AND KATHLEEN M. VON HOFE] :

Civil No. 3:01CV2290 (MRK)

February 7, 2005

GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION TO CLAIMANT'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM Plaintiff, United States of America objects to the proposed verdict form submitted by the Claimant, Kathleen von Hofe because it is confusing and does not accurately address the role of a jury in a civil asset forfeiture case. 1. Kathleen von Hofe and Harold von Hofe are "claimants," not "defendants" as they referenced throughout the claimant's proposed verdict form. 2. Claimant's first interrogatory simply asks the jury to reach a verdict without providing any standards upon which to deliberate, completely omitting any reference to the innocent owner defense. 3. Claimant's second interrogatory asks the jury to deliberate on amount to be forfeited. This is not the role of a jury in a civil asset forfeiture case. The Government seeks forfeiture of the entire property. The jury must first determine whether the Government

Case 3:01-cv-02290-MRK

Document 53

Filed 02/07/2005

Page 2 of 3

has proven a "substantial connection" between the Defendant property and the illegal activity. If the Government satisfies that burden, the Claimant's innocent owner defense must be considered by the jury. If something less than the entire property should be forfeited, the Court shall make that determination, post-jury verdict. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2000), effective August 23, 2000, provides, at 18 U.S.C. § 983(g): (1) The claimant under subsection (a)(4) may petition the court to determine whether the forfeiture was constitutionally excessive. (2) In making this determination, the court shall compare the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture. (3) The claimant shall have the burden of establishing that the forfeiture is grossly disproportional by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing conducted by the court without a jury. 4. Claimant's third interrogatory is misplaced as that is the first issue a jury must address before considering the innocent owner defense. This will only confuse the jury. Respectfully submitted, KEVIN J. O'CONNOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

DAVID X. SULLIVAN ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 1824 NEW HAVEN, CT 06508 (203) 821-3700 CT03793

2

Case 3:01-cv-02290-MRK

Document 53

Filed 02/07/2005

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have caused a copy of the within document was sent via regular, postage, prepaid, on this 7th day of February, 2005, to: Claimants: James F. Cirillo, Jr., Esq. 500 E. Main Street Suite 326 Branford, CT 06405 (203) 488-9828 Jonathan J. Einhorn, Esq. 412 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 777-3777 (Harold von Hofe)

(Kathleen von Hofe)

DAVID X. SULLIVAN Assistant U.S. Attorney