United States Third Circuit

Reset A A Font size: Print

US v. ALBINSON, 01-1265

District court erred both in denying defendant's FRCP rule 41(g) motion for return of seized property based on the government's unsubstantiated assertions that the property had been lost or destroyed, and in failing to make a determination as to what happened to the property. A rule 41(g) motion may not be denied on the basis of a prospective assessment of the remedies that might (or might not) be available.

Appellate Information

  • Argued 10/28/2003
  • Decided 01/27/2004
  • Published 01/27/2004

Judges

  • Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.

Court

  • United States Third Circuit

Counsel

  • For Appellant:
  • Jennifer B. Saulnier, (Argued), Jones Day, Pittsburgh, for Appellant.

  • For Appellees:
  • Eric B. Henson, (Argued), Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, for Appellee.
Copied to clipboard