From: [c--ur--s] at [usenet.ins.cwru.edu]
Newsgroups: freenet.govt.hermes.opinions,courts.usa.federal.supreme
Subject: 95-345.ZC1 Concurring
Date: 24 Jun 1996 16:03:19 GMT

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
--------
Nos. 95-345 and 95-346
--------
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER
95-345               v.
GUY JEROME URSERY
on writ of certiorari to the united states court
of appeals for the sixth circuit

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER
95-346               v.
$405,089.23 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court
of appeals for the ninth circuit
[June 24, 1996]

 Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins,
concurring in the judgment.
 In my view, the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits
successive prosecution, not successive punishment.  See
Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511
U. S. ___, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 1-4, 8) (Scalia, J.,
dissenting).  Civil forfeiture proceedings of the sort at
issue here are not criminal prosecutions, even under the
standard of Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S.
144, 164 (1963), and United States v. Ward, 448 U. S.
242, 248-251 (1980).