govinfo:USCOURTS-mtd-6_19-cr-00003-7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONT ANA 
HELENA DIVISION 
UNITED ST ATES OF AMERICA, CR-19-03-H-CCL 
ORDER Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY KENNETH KNAPP, 
Defendant. 
Before the Court is Defendant's "Motion to Clarify Appellate Rights as it 
Concerns Forfeiture of Firearms." (Doc. 88). Although counsel for the United 
States indicated that the government opposes the motion when asked for his 
position, the United States has not filed a brief in opposition to the pending 
motion. The Court has reviewed the record in its entirety and is prepared to rule. 
BACKGROUND 
After the jury delivered its verdict and was released, the government 
described the firearms that the parties had stipulated would be forfeited in the 
event of a guilty verdict. The Court then ordered forfeiture of the named and 
described firearms. Defendant apparently construes the Court's order from the 
bench as entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture. (See Doc. 88 at 2). 
Case 6:19-cr-00003-BMM     Document 92     Filed 12/20/19     Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION 
Although the parties presented a special verdict form regarding the 
forfeiture count, neither party addressed the forfeiture issue in their proposed jury 
instructions, during pre-trial briefing, or at the final pre-trial conference. The 
Court raised the issue in chambers with counsel after the jury began its 
deliberations and the parties agreed that, should the jury return a guilty verdict, the 
forfeiture issue could be addressed administratively so that the jury would not 
need to remain and address the forfeiture count. 
After the clerk published the verdict in open court, the parties stipulated to 
the preliminary forfeiture of eleven of the sixteen firearms listed in the forfeiture 
count of the superseding information filed on August 21, 2019. Defendant refused 
to stipulate as to five of the sixteen seized firearms because he contends that those 
firearms are owned by either his sister or wife. 
Defendant now seeks to clarify that he has not agreed to a final order of 
forfeiture as to the eleven weapons he admits to owning. In essence, Defendant 
appears to be asking the Court to include in both the preliminary and final order of 
forfeiture conditions reasonably necessary to preserve the subject property's value 
pending any appeal. The Court has the discretion to include such conditions under 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(3). 
I II 
2 
Case 6:19-cr-00003-BMM     Document 92     Filed 12/20/19     Page 2 of 3
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for clarification (Doc. 
88) is GRANTED. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States shall move for entry of 
a proposed order of forfeiture listing the eleven firearms covered by the oral 
stipulation and including language which the parties agree is sufficient to preserve 
the value of those firearms pending appeal. 
Dated this 20th day of December, 2019. 
3 
Case 6:19-cr-00003-BMM     Document 92     Filed 12/20/19     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight