9th Cir.;
14-35717

The court of appeals reversed a judgment of forfeiture. The court held that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could return a verdict of forfeiture as to cash intended to be used to facilitate a drug transaction only if there was proof of some act to effectuate that intent.

When heroin addict Rosalie Guerrero was arrested, husband Charles Guerrero, also a heroin addict, attempted to post bond for her using $11,500.00 in cash. The police department seized the cash, and the government initiated forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. §881(a)(6), claiming the money was either the proceeds from Charles Guerrero's drug deals, or that he intended to use the money to facilitate drug transactions. At trial, Guerrero claimed the money was the proceeds of an insurance settlement that had been paid to Rosalie several years before, and that she used it to invest in her own used car business. The trial court instructed the jury that the $11,500 could be forfeited if it “was intended to be used to facilitate illegal drug activity.”