court’s decision to tax “the claimants for benefits they have received and costs they would have incurred” to be a just exercise of its equitable powers. Id. at 1575. C. The Applicability of the Ex Post Facto Clause to 21 U.S.C. § 881 Next, Griffin appeals the district court’s denial in the consolidated action of his motion for judgment n.o.v. or alternatively for a new trial. Griffin first points out that in the consolidated action, the jury found that the nine gold bars which the government was permitted to forfeit were purchased before 1978. However, Griffin explains, 21 U.S.C. § f forfeiture proceedings has been held to bar the application of important constitutional protections. See United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354,104 S.Ct. 1099, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. $250,000 in United States
holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding that conviction did not violate double jeopardy where jury was empaneled and sworn in criminal trial before defendant filed answer to forfeiture complaint holding that unlike under the federal constitution a civil forfeiture is punishment under the new mexico double jeopardy clause holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment