Culley v. Marshall, No. 22-585 [Arg: 10.30.2023]
Question Presented:
Issue(s): Whether district courts, in determining whether the due process clause requires a state or local government to provide a post-seizure probable-cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial-forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850 and Barker v. Wingo or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge.
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
Issue(s): Whether district courts, in determining whether the due process clause requires a state or local government to provide a post-seizure probable-cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial-forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850 and Barker v. Wingo or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge.
![Culley v. Marshall, No. 22-585 [Arg: 10.30.2023]](https://img.transistor.fm/aFp91BcxmFkVA5r0z76viUUIQDHLMWcvjiTpJCc-5hQ/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:800/h:800/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9lcGlz/b2RlLzE2MTE2OTgv/MTcwMDg2NzA1NS1h/cnR3b3JrLmpwZw.webp)