Honeycutt v. United States

Terry Michael Honeycutt (defendant) was an employee of a hardware store owned by Honeycutt’s brother, but Honeycutt had no ownership interest in the store. Over a span of three years, Honeycutt and his brother sold large quantities of an iodine product that could be used to produce methamphetamine. Honeycutt and his brother were indicted for various crimes related to the iodine sales, and the government (plaintiff) sought forfeiture judgments against each brother pursuant to the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 at 21 U.S.C. § 853, which required any person convicted of a drug-related felony to forfeit all proceeds obtained by the person as a result, either directly or indirectly, of the criminal activity. Honeycutt’s brother pleaded guilty and paid a portion of the forfeiture judgment. Honeycutt, however, went to trial and was convicted. The government sought a forfeiture judgment from Honeycutt for the remainder of the profits that Honeycutt’s brother did not pay, claiming that, because joint and several liability applied to § 853, Honeycutt was jointly liable with his brother for the full amount of the judgment. The district court refused to enter the judgment against Honeycutt because Honeycutt was only an employee of the store and thus had not personally received any profits from the iodine sales. The Sixth Circuit reversed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether joint and several liability applied to § 853.