United States v. Guerrero, No. 14-35717 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6) does not authorize forfeiture based on mere intent to facilitate drug transactions without proof of some act to effectuate that intent. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's civil forfeiture judgment under section 881(a)(6) from claimant. The panel held that the district court's instructions to the jury on the facilitation theory were plain error because they permitted forfeiture even if the claimant never took any step to use the money to facilitate drug transactions. The court remanded to the district court for a new trial.
Court Description: Civil Forfeiture. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment of civil forfeiture of $11,500 under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) from claimant Charles Guerrero, and remanded for a new trial. When Guerrero, through a friend, tried to post the $11,500 as bail for his wife, the government seized the cash. At trial, the government alleged two theories: that the money was proceeds from the claimant’s drug deals, and that the claimant used or intended to use the money to facilitate drug transactions. The jury rejected the first “proceeds” theory, but found for the government on the second “facilitation” theory. The panel held that 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) does not authorize forfeiture based on mere intent to facilitate drug transactions without proof of some act to effectuate that intent. The panel held that the district court’s instructions to the jury on the facilitation theory was plain error because they permitted forfeiture even if the claimant never took any step to use the money to facilitate drug transactions. The panel concluded that there was a high probability that this plain error infected the jury’s verdict. UNITED STATES V. GUERRERO 3 Judge Hurwitz concurred without reservation in Parts I– IV of the panel’s opinion, but acquiesced dubitante as to Part V concerning the issue of plain error because he had serious doubts that the error was plain.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.