Griffin v. United States of America

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to reconsider 16 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Cameron Scott Griffin follow the direction of the Ninth Circuit contained in its Order filed September 17, 2 015 21 , to provide proper notice to the Circuit and to file a notice of appeal, all as set forth in that Order. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
CAMERON SCOTT GRIFFIN
Petitioner,

Case No. 3:14-CV-199-BLW

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

INTRODUCTION
On September 17, 2015, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case to this Court to
resolve defendant Griffin’s motion for reconsideration. The motion has been fully
briefed by defendant Griffin and is at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court
will deny the motion.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND
Defendant Griffin was charged in 2006 with six charges of conspiracy and
possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, along with a forfeiture count.
See Second Superseding Indictment in U.S. v. Griffin, CR-06-67-EJL (Dkt. No. 93). The
forfeiture count sought to forfeit numerous items including a jet boat, firearms, vehicles,
and real property.
Following a jury trial, the jury found Griffin guilty of five charges, including the
conspiracy charge. See Special Verdict (Dkt. No. 176). At the sentencing hearing, Judge
Lodge heard testimony regarding the forfeiture and the connection between the crimes
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1

Griffin was convicted of and the property sought to be forfeited. For each item of
property sought to be forfeited, Judge Lodge made specific findings concerning its
connection to the crimes of conviction. See Transcripts (Dkt. Nos. 240 & 241). Judge
Lodge then issued a final order of forfeiture. See Final Order of Forfeiture (Dkt. No.
261). The Ninth Circuit affirmed Griffin’s convictions. See Ninth Circuit Memorandum
(Dkt. No. 273).
Griffin then filed this case under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for the
return of the property ordered forfeited by Judge Lodge. Magistrate Judge Dale issued an
Initial Review Order finding that Griffin could not use Rule 41(g) to challenge Judge
Lodge’s forfeiture decision. See Order (Dkt. No. 12). This Court conducted an
independent review and agreed with Judge Dale’s analysis, dismissing the action. See
Order (Dkt. No. 14).
Griffin then filed (1) a motion to reconsider, and (2) an appeal. On September 17,
2015, the Ninth Circuit remanded the appeal to this Court to resolve the motion for
reconsideration.
ANALYSIS
In his motion to reconsider, Griffin argues that he is entitled to the return of his
forfeited property that he possessed before 2006, reasoning that, because he was acquitted
of charges that arose before 2006, that property cannot be connected to any crime. For
example, he alleges that he purchased the jet boat in 2001, five years before the 2006
crimes were committed.

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2

But Griffin was convicted of a conspiracy charge. See Judgment in a Criminal
Case in U.S. v. Griffin, CR-06-67-EJL (Dkt. No. 217). The Second Superseding
Indictment alleged that the conspiracy operated from 2001 to 2006, see Second
Superseding Indictment (Dkt. No. 93), the jury was so instructed, see Jury Instruction No.
30 (Dkt. No. 173), and the jury so found. See Special Verdict in U.S. v. Griffin, CR-0667-EJL (Dkt. No. 176). Thus, Judge Lodge properly extended the forfeiture back in time,
and was not limited to property purchased in 2006 or later. Moreover, so long as the
Government proves a nexus between the property and the crime, the date the property
was purchased is irrelevant. See generally U.S. v. Mancuso, 718 F.3d 780, 798-99 (9th
Cir. 2013) (discussing the nexus requirement).
Griffin argues that he is entitled to challenge Judge Lodge’s forfeiture decision in
a Rule 41(g) motion. The Court disagrees: “If property has been ordered forfeited in a
judicial forfeiture proceeding, this cannot be challenged by a motion under Criminal Rule
41(g)”. 3A Wright & Leipold, Federal Practice & Procedure §690 (4th ed. 2015); see
also U.S. v. Gladding, 775 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that “[i]t is wellsettled that the federal government may defeat a Rule [41(g)] motion by demonstrating
that the property is subject to federal forfeiture”).
Finally, Griffin argues that the Court ignored his ineffective assistance of counsel
claim based on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. But the Supreme Court has held
that criminal forfeiture orders are not subject to the Sixth Amendment. Libretti v. U.S.,
561 U.S. 29(1995); see also U.S. v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3

Cir. 1995) (holding that Sixth Amendment does not apply to forfeiture proceeding
because imprisonment is not an option).
For all of these reasons, and the reasons expressed in the Court’s original decision
adopting Judge Dale’s analysis, the motion to reconsider is denied.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to reconsider
(docket no. 16) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Cameron Scott Griffin follow the direction of
the Ninth Circuit contained in its Order filed September 17, 2015 (docket no. 21), to
provide proper notice to the Circuit and to file a notice of appeal, all as set forth in that
Order.

DATED: September 22, 2015

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 4