Brief filed: 08/10/2016
United States v. Chamberlain
4th Circuit Court of Appeals; Case No. 16-4313
Decision below 2016 WL 2899255 (E.D.N.C. May 17, 2016).
This court's prior decision in Billman is not a viable authority and should no longer be followed. Billman authorizes the pretrial restraint of any property – whether tainted or untainted – that might ultimately be forfeited to the government upon conviction. Every other circuit to address the issue has held that the statute does not authorize the government to restrain a defendant's untainted, substitute assets before trial. Luis rejected the argument that the government is authorized to restrain all property that might ultimately be forfeited to the government upon conviction. Luis expressly rejects the broad reading of Monsanto relied upon by this court in Billman. Luis holds that the proper inquiry is to examine the parties' respective property rights under the statute. Luis describes section 853 as permitting only the pretrial restraint of tainted assets, and the government agreed with the court's description during oral argument. En Banc proceedings are not necessary to overrule Billman in this case.
Pattern Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses: A Trial Strategy & Resource Guide
In a criminal trial, cross-examination of the prosecution’s forensic expert may make the difference between victory or defeat.
2020 Sample Motions Collection Update
NACDL’s 2020 Sample Motions Collection is the follow-up to our wildly popular 2019 Sample Motions Collection and contains the newest and most recent additions to our ever-expanding Sample Motions library.
State v. Stone - A Case Study on Child Sexual Molestation & Sexual Battery
The criminal defense attorney tasked with defending such a case has to be prepared to not only show reasonable doubt, but to answer this question: If it did not happen, how is it that the child believes it did happen?
POZNER ON CROSS: Advanced Cross of Experts & Officers in DUI Cases
It’s not your strong opening argument. It’s not how many of your impassioned objections the judge sustains. It’s not even how you tie your theory of the case together with a dazzling closing statement bow. What wins your trial is your cross.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
Abbe David Lowell and Scott W. Coyle, Chadbourne & Parke LLP, Washington, DC; Thomas K. Maher, N.C. Office of Indigent Def. Services, Durham, NC; Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute, Washington, DC.