McIntosh v. United States
The Facts
Louis McIntosh was convicted of federal crimes, and the government sought criminal forfeiture. The district court failed to include the forfeiture order in the original judgment. Later the court entered a supplemental forfeiture order. McIntosh argued the original omission forfeited the government's right to forfeiture.
The Issue
Whether a defendant forfeits a Rehaif scienter challenge when his counsel affirmatively requested the now-erroneous jury instruction under then-controlling circuit precedent
The Rules
Rehaif v. United States (2019) scienter requirement
Plain error vs. forfeiture vs. invited error doctrine
Effect of counsel's reliance on superseded circuit precedent
The Application
The district court's omission of forfeiture from the original judgment did not trigger the permanent forfeiture of the government's right to seek forfeiture, because the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure preserve authority to supplement sentencing components including forfeiture orders. McIntosh's argument that the procedural gap at sentencing created an irreversible bar failed because the rules do not impose such a bar: they contemplate correction and supplementation as part of the ongoing sentencing process. The Court's unanimous affirmance thus closed off what would have amounted to a procedural windfall, allowing the district court's later order to stand despite the initial omission.
The Conclusion
**The Court affirmed 9-0, holding the district court retained authority to impose forfeiture despite the original omission.** The ruling limits defendants' ability to escape forfeiture by pointing to procedural gaps in the initial sentencing order.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court unanimously held that a district court's failure to include a forfeiture order in the judgment at sentencing does not deprive the court of authority to enter a forfeiture order later, rejecting the argument that the omission constitutes an uncorrectable error requiring the original judgment to stand without forfeiture.
Facts
Louis McIntosh was convicted of federal crimes, and the government sought criminal forfeiture. The district court failed to include the forfeiture order in the original judgment. Later the court entered a supplemental forfeiture order. McIntosh argued the original omission forfeited the government's right to forfeiture.
Issue
Whether a district court's failure to include forfeiture in the original criminal judgment bars a later forfeiture order.
Rule
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure treat forfeiture as a component of sentencing that may be corrected or supplemented. An initial omission of forfeiture from the judgment does not strip the court of authority to enter the order at a later point in the proceeding.
Analysis
The district court's omission of forfeiture from the original judgment did not trigger the permanent forfeiture of the government's right to seek forfeiture, because the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure preserve authority to supplement sentencing components including forfeiture orders. McIntosh's argument that the procedural gap at sentencing created an irreversible bar failed because the rules do not impose such a bar. They contemplate correction and supplementation as part of the ongoing sentencing process. The Court's unanimous affirmance thus closed off what would have amounted to a procedural windfall, allowing the district court's later order to stand despite the initial omission.
Conclusion
**The Court affirmed 9-0, holding the district court retained authority to impose forfeiture despite the original omission.** The ruling limits defendants' ability to escape forfeiture by pointing to procedural gaps in the initial sentencing order.
Notes
OT2023. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support