United States v. Bob Henson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7772
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- The Outlaws Motorcycle Club members were indicted in a large RICO prosecution; Knoll and Shephard pled guilty and agreed to forfeiture of certain real and personal property used in the offenses.
- The government obtained Preliminary Orders of Forfeiture for two Indianapolis properties and one Fort Wayne property and provided notice under the district court’s Good Real Property order requirements.
- Bob Henson intervened as a third-party claimant, filing an amended consolidated petition asserting an interest in all three properties based on his role as a resident/caretaker and officer/trustee of the Outlaws.
- Henson’s evidentiary support was a two‑page personal statement describing caretaking tasks (delegating chores, paying bills) and claiming an interest that arose after an initial 2012 raid; he offered no documentary proof of a legal property interest.
- The government moved for summary judgment, arguing Henson failed to prove a legal interest vested at the time of the criminal acts; the district court granted summary judgment for the government and denied Henson’s proposed expert testimony as moot.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed: Henson lacked a legal interest vested at the time of the offenses, his asserted equitable/caretaker interest did not satisfy the statute, and the proposed expert testimony would not have aided the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henson has a legal right, title, or interest in forfeited property under 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l)(6) | Henson: his caretaking/leadership role and control over household functions created a possessory/equitable interest sufficient to challenge forfeiture | Government: Henson presented no evidence of a legal interest under state law and his claimed interest arose after the criminal acts, so it fails § 1963(l)(6) timing and legal‑interest requirements | Held for Government — Henson failed to prove a legal interest vested at the time of the criminal acts; equitable/caretaker assertions insufficient |
| Whether Henson was a bona fide purchaser for value (exception to timing rule) | Henson: did not assert bona fide purchaser status | Government: no evidence supports bona fide purchaser status | Held for Government — no claim or evidence that Henson was a bona fide purchaser |
| Admissibility/utility of proposed expert (Bradley Carlson) testimony | Henson: Carlson would testify about Outlaws’ traditions treating caretakers as having equitable interests and value of personal property | Government: proposed testimony would not establish a legal interest and expert would be offering legal conclusions; value of personal property not material | Held for Government — district court did not abuse discretion denying expert; testimony would not help (legal conclusions, not admissible) |
| Whether government established nexus between properties and crimes | Henson: (raised on appeal) challenged absence of nexus evidence | Government: (below) forfeiture orders were proper; Henson waived this argument by not raising it below | Held for Government — claim waived because not raised in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (due‑process procedures for posting/seizing real property subject to forfeiture)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard / reasonable inferences for nonmovant)
- Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979) (property interests are defined by state law)
- United States v. Ginsburg, 773 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1985) (government’s forfeiture interest vests at time of the act giving rise to the violation)
- United States v. Timley, 507 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 2007) (claimant must show priority of ownership at time of offense or bona fide purchaser status)
- Jimenez v. City of Chicago, 732 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2013) (expert witnesses generally may not offer legal opinions)