Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States
1989 U.S. LEXIS 3124, 105 L. Ed. 2d 528, 491 U.S. 617 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice is not violated when a federal forfeiture statute is used to seize assets that the defendant intends to use to pay attorney's fees. The government's strong interest in recovering all forfeitable assets under the statute's "relation-back" provision, which vests title in the government at the time of the crime, overrides any qualified Sixth Amendment interest in using those assets for a legal defense.
Facts:
- Christopher Reckmeyer was indicted for running a massive drug importation and distribution scheme, designated as a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE).
- Prior to the indictment, Reckmeyer retained the law firm Caplin & Drysdale to represent him in the grand jury investigation.
- The indictment sought forfeiture of specific assets in Reckmeyer's possession that were proceeds from his drug-law violations.
- A few days after the indictment, despite a court order freezing his assets, Reckmeyer paid Caplin & Drysdale $25,000 for preindictment legal services, which the firm placed in escrow.
- Reckmeyer later entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the CCE charge and agreeing to forfeit virtually all of his assets to the government.
- Caplin & Drysdale asserted a claim to $170,000 of Reckmeyer’s forfeited assets as payment for its legal services in conducting his defense.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted Christopher Reckmeyer in U.S. District Court, seeking forfeiture of his assets derived from a continuing criminal enterprise.
- The District Court entered a pretrial restraining order freezing Reckmeyer's potentially forfeitable assets.
- Reckmeyer entered into a plea agreement, and the District Court subsequently entered an order forfeiting his assets.
- The law firm, Caplin & Drysdale, filed a third-party petition in the District Court asserting an interest in the forfeited assets as payment for legal fees.
- The District Court granted the law firm's claim for a share of the assets.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where a panel initially affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The Fourth Circuit, as an appellee, then reheard the case en banc and reversed the panel's decision, finding the forfeiture constitutional.
- Caplin & Drysdale, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal drug forfeiture statute, which authorizes the government to seize assets a defendant intends to use for legal fees, violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice or the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. The federal drug forfeiture statute does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice or the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause by permitting the forfeiture of assets a defendant intends to use for legal fees. The Sixth Amendment does not grant a defendant the right to spend another person's money to retain counsel. The forfeiture statute's 'relation-back' provision, 21 U.S.C. § 853(c), vests all right, title, and interest in the illicit proceeds in the United States at the moment the crime is committed. Therefore, a defendant has no valid title to these assets and cannot use them to pay an attorney, any more than a bank robber could use stolen money for his defense. The government has a strong interest in obtaining full recovery of all forfeitable assets to fund law enforcement, provide restitution to victims, and strip criminals of their economic power, which overrides the defendant's qualified right to counsel of choice. The Fifth Amendment claim fails because the potential for prosecutorial abuse does not render an otherwise permissible statute facially invalid.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. Forfeiting assets needed to pay for a legitimate legal defense unconstitutionally burdens a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. The majority's reliance on the 'relation-back' doctrine allows a legal fiction to override a fundamental constitutional right, effectively allowing the government to beggar a defendant and disable their defense before they are even convicted. This practice undermines the adversarial system by creating conflicts of interest for attorneys, discouraging talented counsel from taking complex criminal cases, and giving the government an intolerable degree of power over the defense. The government's asserted interests in forfeiture are too weak to justify this substantial erosion of the Sixth Amendment's protection of the right to counsel of choice, which is essential for a fair trial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the government's ability to prosecute complex drug and racketeering cases by validating the use of asset forfeiture as a powerful prosecutorial tool. It established that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice is not absolute and does not include the right to use illicitly-gained funds for a legal defense. The ruling limits a defendant's ability to hire high-priced private counsel if their assets are traceable to illegal activity, thereby increasing reliance on appointed counsel in such cases. By upholding the 'relation-back' doctrine, the Court solidified the legal principle that proceeds of crime are considered government property from the moment the criminal act occurs.
