In this criminal case, defendant Falkowski was indicted on charges related to the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. The day following the criminal indictment, the government filed civil forfeiture proceedings against real property obviously used in the commission of the crime. The sequence of the events following is important. On October 14, defendant was arrested. On November 5, the United States sought entry of default in the civil forfeiture case. On November 13, defendant pled guilty to some of the criminal charges pursuant to a plea agreement. On December 2, the government made a second request to enter default in the civil forfeiture action. On December 14, the clerk entered default in the civil forfeiture proceeding. On February 2, the United States moved for a decree of forfeiture. On July 28, defendant was sentenced in the criminal case. Defendant appealed the criminal conviction claiming that the civil forfeiture and criminal sentence constituted double jeopardy and because the sentence was the last to be imposed, the conviction must be set aside. The court stated that there were three reasons why the attack on the criminal case must fail. First, jeopardy attached in the criminal case before the default judgment was entered in the civil proceeding. Second, by entering a plea of guilty, defendant waived or forfeited the right to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence on double jeopardy. Third, the civil forfeiture was not based upon the same offense for which defendant was criminally prosecuted.
1. Summarize the facts that led up to the defendant's claim that he had been subjected to double jeopardy.
2. What were the legal questions before the court?
3. Based on what you read in this case, what is civil forfeiture?