The following excerpt is from United States v. Grote, Docket No. 18-1802, Docket No. 18-181(L), Docket No. 18-184(CON) (2nd Cir. 2020):
The district court, like others in our circuit facing similar fact patterns, applied the slightly modified version of the traditional stay factors articulated by the district court in Silver: "1) the likelihood of success on appeal; 2) whether the forfeited asset is likely to depreciate over time; 3) the forfeited asset's intrinsic value to defendant (i.e., the availability of substitutes); and 4) the expense of maintaining the forfeited property." Silver, 203 F. Supp. 3d at 385; see also United States v. Ngari, 559 F. App'x 259, 272 (5th Cir. 2014) (analyzing denial of stay by considering "(1) the likelihood of success on appeal; (2) whether the forfeited assets will depreciate over time; (3) the forfeited assets' intrinsic value to the defendant; and (4) the expense of maintaining the forfeited property").
Page 43
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.