Legal Opinion
United States v. Stanwood
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided December 16, 1994No. CR 91-279-JO. Civ. No. 94-1333-JOPublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT E. JONES, District Judge:
Defendant Martin Hobart Stanwood moves to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on the grounds that his criminal conviction was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I have heard oral argument, reviewed the record and considered the memoranda submitted by the parties. For the reasons stated below, I conclude that the motion must be denied.
PRELUDE
As an integral part of the “war on drugs,” civil forfeiture of property co-exists with criminal prosecutions…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States v. BroceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Menna v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- United States v. David Bruce McDermott IICourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- Ex Parte WardCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1998
- State v. WhitehornMontana Supreme Court · 2002
- United States v. BranumDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1994
- United States v. SherrettDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1995
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.