JORDAN JAIME SILVER v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the defendant’s criminal narcotics conviction was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because he had previously been subject to a civil forfeiture judgment for the same offense
• holding that the defendant's criminal narcotics conviction was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because he had previously been subject to a civil forfeiture judgment for the same offense
• holding that civil forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes because Austin \`resolves the \punishment\ issue with respect to forfeiture cases for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause as well as the Excessive Fines Clause'\
• holding that civil forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes because Austin “ ‘resolves the “punishment” issue with respect to forfeiture cases for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause as well as the Excessive Fines Clause’ ”
• reversing criminal conviction on double jeopardy grounds because defendant had already been punished by civil forfeiture proceeding
• finding separate proceedings where civil forfeiture proceeding and criminal prosecution were instituted at different times, presided over by different district judges, and resolved by separate judgments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).