NCJ Number
123772
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 59 Issue: 4 Dated: (April 1990) Pages: 27-32
Date Published
1990
Length
6 pages
Annotation
Through forfeiture statutes, Congress has given the Federal Government the opportunity to finance the war on drugs by seizing and forfeiting drug traffickers' illegally obtained assets.
Abstract
Moreover, in two recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government's ability to forfeit extends to drug assets needed or used to pay attorneys' fees. With respect to the Federal Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 (CFA), the Supreme Court was confronted with three questions: (1) whether CFA wording permits the forfeiture of funds needed to pay an attorney; (2) if the CFA language does permit forfeiture of attorneys' fees, whether a court-created exception should be fashioned; and (3) whether Congress intended the forfeiture of attorneys' fees. Those opposed to forfeiture of attorneys' fees raised several constitutional arguments in support of their position. These arguments were grounded in both the Sixth Amendment's guaranteed right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment's due process protection. Three additional arguments were raised by the parties opposing forfeiture, all of which involved possible ethical conflicts confronting lawyers defending drug traffickers whose assets are potentially subject to forfeiture. The Supreme Court conclusively determined that there are no statutory, constitutional, or ethical impediments to the forfeiture of attorney's fees under the CFA's criminal provisions. 45 references.