The Supreme Court in Honeycutt v. United States ruled that a man who worked at his brother’s hardware store and sold an iodine-based product that could be used to make methamphetamine was not required to forfeit profits that he never earned, despite his conspiracy conviction for his role in the sales. The Honeycutt case has the potential to shed significant light on the extent of liability of conspirators while also limiting the government’s power to seize assets from entities who are involved in a criminal enterprise.
The Facts of the Case
The Honeycutt case concerns two Tennessee brothers who were convicted on drug conspiracy charges. In the involved action, the government sought nearly $270,000 from sale of the iodine based product. Over the course of three years, the store in question reported sales of over 20,000 bottles of “Polar Pure” water purifiers at over a $270,000 profit. Law enforcement instructed the store own… Continue Reading this Post
The United States Attorney's Office the District of Massachusetts is increasing prosecution against undocumented immigrants who have attempted to re-enter the country after being deported.
In May 2017, the office issued 12 press releases concerning undocumented immigrants who have been charged with illegal re-entry into the country. These releases culminated in three reports that were sent within a span of seven minutes on the Friday before Memorial Day. These releases include the following: