Nicholas P. Marrocco v. Funds in the Amount of One Hun
901 F.3d 758
7th Cir.2018Background
- On Dec. 6, 2002, Amtrak/CPD officers stopped Vincent Fallon on a train after Officer Romano identified Fallon’s ticket and travel profile as consistent with a drug courier; a locked briefcase in Fallon’s room ultimately was opened and found to contain U.S. currency.
- A drug-detection dog alerted to the briefcase; officers counted $100,120 (cash later converted to a cashier’s check and deposited) and the government filed an in rem civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
- Claimants were Fallon (passenger) and Nicholas Marrocco (undisputed owner who claimed the money represented savings to be transported/invested); neither was criminally charged in connection with the funds.
- Lower courts previously suppressed the dog-sniff and currency (reversed on appeal), and summary judgment for the government was reversed on appeal for factual disputes; the case proceeded to a jury trial in 2016.
- At trial the jury heard the drug-dog testimony, Fallon's behavior and inconsistent statements, and evidence challenging Marrocco’s claimed source of funds; the jury returned a verdict for the government that the money was substantially connected to a drug transaction.
- Claimants’ post-trial motions (spoliation, new trial, JMOL, and excessiveness under the Eighth Amendment) were denied; this appeal affirms those rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation (destruction of currency) | Gov’t converted bills to cashier’s check in bad faith to prevent chemical testing; district court should have given spoliation instruction or barred dog evidence | Conversion followed DOJ policy not to hold large amounts of cash; no bad faith | Court affirmed denial of relief: claimants waived/chose not to appeal earlier adverse spoliation ruling, so district court on remand properly declined to revisit and no spoliation instruction was required |
| Jury instructions (transaction vs. offense/innocent-owner) | Instructions confused jury and undermined innocent-owner defense | Instructions correctly stated law: gov’t need only show substantial connection to some drug transaction; innocent-owner is claimants’ burden and was not raised | Court held instructions accurate overall and not prejudicial; no reversible error |
| Court’s answer to jury question about lab testing/procedures | Court’s response effectively told jury to ignore lack of chemical testing and was misleading | Court fairly distinguished legal procedural issues from factual questions and told jury they had all evidence and must decide based on it | Court held district judge did not abuse discretion in responding and no prejudice shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence / JMOL | Evidence was insufficient: drug-dog alerts and profile are unreliable; Marrocco’s explanation could be legitimate | Evidence (dog’s strong record, suspicious travel/profile, implausible explanations, inconsistencies, and credibility assessments) sufficed by preponderance standard | De novo review: jury verdict upheld—reasonable jurors could find substantial connection to drug transaction |
| Excessive-fines / request for §983(g) hearing | Forfeiture of entire $100,120 is grossly disproportionate absent proof claimants participated in crime; court should have held proportionality hearing | Jury found money connected to illegal activity; forfeiture of proceeds/tainted funds is lawful and no further factfinding required for proportionality | Court held forfeiture not grossly disproportionate as matter of law given jury’s finding; no separate hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., 642 F.3d 565 (7th Cir.) (standard for viewing evidence after jury verdict)
- Menzer v. United States, 200 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000) (law-of-the-case / when trial court may revisit evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Marrocco, 578 F.3d 627 (7th Cir.) (earlier appeal resolving Fourth Amendment suppression)
- United States v. $100,120, 730 F.3d 711 (7th Cir.) (prior appellate decision reversing summary judgment and identifying factual disputes)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S.) (Eighth Amendment excessive-fines framework)
- United States v. $271,080, 816 F.3d 903 (7th Cir.) (discussing innocent-owner defense and summary-judgment context)
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir.) (demeanor and implausible explanations as circumstantial evidence)