Case Analysis (pg. 351)
1. Summarize the facts that led to the defendant’s claim that he was subjected to double jeopardy.
He was convicted to his concurrent 72 month sentences for his crime which he plead guilty to, in which the judgment and sentencing of said crimes never referred to his Caribou Way property. Prior to this conviction, his property had already been forfeited to the American government by order of default in this same case. His plea agreement never referred to the forfeit of his Caribou Way property. The initial forfeiture of the property was a judgment made on the open cases against Falkowski. Then, having him sentenced for concurrent 72 month terms in a correctional facility would have made that a secondary judgment on the same cases which the American government was granted possession of the property for. Considering his plea agreement referred to the forfeiture of his real estate, it would be implied that the seizing of the Caribou Way property was meant to satisfy his guilty plea, and since the judgment of the possession of the property wasn’t granted along with the sentencing of the accused, then the order of the events would show that he was subjected to double jeopardy once by the seizing of his property, and then again by the sentencing of 72 concurrent month terms for each count. Giving reason to believe that the seizing of the property didn’t satisfy the judgment placed by the court for any of the counts the accused was facing.
2. What was (were) the legal question(s) before the court?
Can the forfeiture of real estate to the American government satisfy the crimes possibly committed by the accused?
Are the concurrent terms for each count a reasonable punishment when taken into consideration the fact that the accused has already forfeited his real estate in relation to this case?
Was the Caribou Way property proven to be directly