My Photo

PRACDL Blog Contributors

  • Tom Lincoln
    PRACDL Board Member
  • Rachel Brill
    PRACDL Board Member
  • Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco
    PRACDL Board Member
  • Linda Backiel
    PRACDL President

Email

PRACDL Board

  • Linda Backiel
    President
  • Mariángela Tirado-Vales
    Vice President
  • Jason González-Delgado
    Secretary
  • Jorge E. Rivera-Ortíz
    Treasurer
  • Rachel Brill
    Board Member
  • Joseph C. Laws, Jr.
    Fed. Pub. Defender - Board Member
  • Thomas R. Lincoln
    Board Member
  • Olga M. Shepard de Mari
    Board Member
  • Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco
    Board Member

Past Presidents

  • Joseph C. Laws, Jr.
  • Jorge L. Arroyo Alejandro
  • María H. Sandoval Ochoa
  • Thomas R. Lincoln San Juan
  • Mariángela Tirado-Vales

PRACDL By Laws

Legal Guide for Bloggers


  • Bloggers' Rights at EFF

USLaw.com Blog Network


  • lawyer blogs

CC License

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 11/2004

January 19, 2005

Judge Pérez-Giménez Rules on Attorney's Fees Inquiry

I strongly suggest reading Judge Pérez-Giménez's Opinion and Order in U.S. v.  Angel González-Méndez, Cr. No. 04-217 (PG) (D.PR January 14, 2005) concerning the Government's interest in inquiring as to the source of attorneys fees --pretrial-- in a case involving the robbery of a financial institution and in which none of the stolen funds have been recovered. Defendants apparently have no legitimate income either.  Judge Pérez-Giménez tells the Government that they cannot use the procedure set forth for so-called "Nebbia hearings" (after US v. Nebbia, 357 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1966)) for this sort of pretrial investigation. However, and this is important, take a careful look at n. 3 of the opinion.

September 22, 2004

Civil Forfeiture & Appointment of Counsel under CAFRA

      I know many of you are well versed in matters of civil forfeiture. However, for those that are not, and wish an easy reading recent case from the First Circuit that will give you some idea of how it operates post-CAFRA (Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000), I refer you to today's opinion in United States v. One Parcel of Real Property with Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements known as 45 Claremont St., located in the City of Central Falls, Rhode Island, (Maria Benavides, Claimant, Appellant), No. 03-2630 (1st Cir. September 21, 2004) (per curiam) (unpublished).

I would also remind all that Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 983(b) allows the court to authorize counsel representing a defendant pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 3006A, to also represent said defendant in a related judicial civil forfeiture action once defendant has fulfilled certain prerequisites. We set forth the relevant statutory language.

§ 983.    General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings 

(b) REPRESENTATION. --


(1)(A) If a person with standing to contest the forfeiture of property in a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute is financially unable to obtain representation by counsel, and the person is represented by counsel appointed under section 3006A of this title in connection with a related criminal case, the court may authorize counsel to represent that person with respect to the claim.

(B) In determining whether to authorize counsel to represent a person under subparagraph (A), the court shall take into account such factors as--

(i.)    the person’s
standing to contest the forfeiture; and

(ii.)   whether the
claim appears to be made in good faith.   

    *   *   *   

(3) The court shall set the compensation for representation under this subsection, which shall be equivalent to that provided for court-appointed representation under section 3006A of this title.

18 U.S.C. § 983(b).

Since 1991


  • NACDL

PRACDL Group Listserv