United States v. Stanley A. Albinson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a fact finder may not deny a Rule 41(g) motion based on a prospective assessment of the remedies that might (or might not) be available”
• finding that government must do more than simply state it has given the property to third parties
• noting that the Government can meet its burden to establish property has been destroyed through documentary evidence
• considering a post- conviction Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) motion in the criminal case for return of seized property
• “[T]he government must do more than state, without documentary support, that it no longer possesses the property at issue.”
• “[A] pro se Rule 41(g) motion should be liberally construed to allow the assertion of alternative claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).