Washington, DC, November 7, 1995 -- "America depends on the preservation of
fairness and constitutional protections for the guilty as well as the innocent. But
apparently today's Supreme Court -- with the exception of Justice Stevens -- is
untroubled about applying a watered-down standard to protect the property rights of
defendants in criminal forfeitures," declared Robert Fogelnest, president of the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), in reaction to today's
Supreme Court decision in Libretti v. U.S.
The Court ruled that federal judges need not satisfy themselves that specific
property given up by a defendant who pleads guilty is actually the proceeds or tools
of the crime. The Court also held that judges are not required to advise defendants in
such circumstances that they are waiving a right to have a jury decide whether the
property may be forfeited.
"Without meaningful discussion or consideration of the constitutional arguments
advanced by counsel, the Court glosses over the critical questions raised by this case,"
Fogelnest commented.
"It's 'anything goes' if you're guilty," he said. "As Justice Stevens points out in
his common-sense dissent, 'it is not unthinkable that a wealthy defendant might
bargain for a light sentence by voluntarily 'forfeiting' property to which the
government had no statutory entitlement.' All of us -- innocent and guilty alike --
depend on courts to keep the government from taking from us more than it has a legal
right to take," he warned.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)