# United States v. Charles William McHan

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 1, 1992 · 966 F.2d 134

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483031

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles William McHAN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 1, 1992
- **Citations:** 966 F.2d 134
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hall
- **Judges:** Hall, Niemeyer, Luttig
- **Cited by:** 40 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483031

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “as the Court concluded in Garrett, there can be little doubt that Congress determined a CCE offense is different from the predicate offenses.”
- finding double jeopardy claim not frivolous where determination of whether indictments charged same offense required a complex analysis
- noting that the five factors should be applied flexibly, with no pre-assigned weight given to any factor

## Opinion text

HALL, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Though I concur in. the judgment and opinion of the court, I am compelled to express my distaste with the manner in which these charges have been brokered against McHan’s wife’s interest in property the government seeks to obtain through forfeiture.
The government dishonors itself when it demands a ransom from a prisoner’s loved ones. Terrorists concededly retain the practice, but civilized states retired the ransom along with the crossbow and jousting tournament. The demand here is especially galling because it followed Mrs. McHan’s victory as an innocent owner in the forfeiture adjunct of McHan’s first prosecution. United States v. 35 Acres, No. CA-88-173 (W.D.N.C.), aff'd, 940 F.2d 654 (4th Cir.1991).
I have no quarrel with the government’s right to litigate with anyone claiming an interest in forfeitable property, including the spouses of wrongdoers, though justice, and not booty, must be the government’s object. Cf., United States v. Borromeo, 945 F.2d 750 (4th Cir.1991). Any dispute the government has with Mrs. McHan may be litigated zealously, but fairly, against her. On the other hand, when the value of a prisoner is measured by the sum others might pay for the state’s leniency, I am forced to ponder whether the morality of government has improved in the past six hundred years.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483031. Public record. Not legal advice.