Forfeiture

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Charles Skaggs, Jr.

Case No.: 22-2424

Officials: Wood, Brennan, and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Forfeiture

In 2020, Skaggs was found guilty of producing and possessing child pornography. The initial legal charge included a notification that the government planned to confiscate Skaggs’s seized properties as a result of the investigation. Skaggs chose to represent himself in court with the aid of standby counsel and was subsequently convicted.

During the proceedings, Skaggs raised an objection to the forfeiture, arguing that certain properties being targeted were not relevant to his crimes. The court responded by stating that it would request the government to provide a detailed list of the properties after the sentencing, allowing Skaggs an opportunity to voice his objections. In the end, Skaggs was handed a life imprisonment sentence, which included a forfeiture clause mirroring the language in the original indictment. This clause stipulated that “The defendant shall forfeit all images of child pornography … and all property seized during the searches of the defendant’s person, residence, and laundry room.” The Seventh Circuit Court upheld both Skaggs’s conviction and sentence.

Around 30 months later, well beyond the 14-day period outlined in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) for sentence corrections, the court, at the government’s behest, issued a preliminary order for forfeiture. This order listed each individual piece of property that Skaggs was required to forfeit, all without providing Skaggs the promised chance to voice any objections. In response, the Seventh Circuit Court annulled this action, reasoning that any forfeiture determined during the original sentencing was integral to the ultimate judgment. As such, the district court lacked the authority to modify that judgment years after its initial entry.

Vacated.

Decided 08/23/23

Full Text