Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Alexander (D) was in the 'adult entertainment' business for more than 30 years, selling pornographic magazines and sexual paraphernalia, showing sexually explicit movies, and eventually selling and renting videotapes of a similar nature. He sold his products through some 13 retail stores in several different Minnesota cities, generating millions of dollars in annual revenues. In 1989, federal authorities filed a 41-count indictment against D and others, alleging, operation of a racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO. He was convicted on a large number of charges. As a basis for the obscenity and RICO convictions, the jury determined that four magazines and three videotapes were obscene. The District Court conducted a forfeiture proceeding and ordered D to forfeit his wholesale and retail businesses (including all the assets of those businesses) and almost $9 million in money acquired through racketeering activity. The Court of Appeals found that the forfeiture here was 'a criminal penalty imposed following a conviction for conducting an enterprise engaged in racketeering activities,' and not a prior restraint on speech. It pointed out that the forfeiture order was properly limited to assets linked to petitioner's past racketeering offenses. The Court of Appeals concluded that the forfeiture order does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against 'cruel and unusual punishments' and 'excessive fines.' In so ruling, however, the court did not consider whether the forfeiture, in this case, was grossly disproportionate or excessive, believing that the Eighth Amendment '`does not require a proportionality review of any sentence less than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.''
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co