The only effect it would have at all is the rare instance where the jury finds the government's case and the property owner's case equally convincing, in which case the property owner would win rather than the government. Only a small fraction of forfeiture cases make it to trial. Most forfeiture victims lose their cases early on because of failure to post the claim and cost bond in time, because they can't find a lawyer or make procedural mistakes, or lose on summary judgment because the laws are so slanted in favor of the government. Others are forced to settle because the cost of litigation exceeds the value of the property. Although civil forfeiture is not a criminal punishment, the Supreme Court has held that it is a punishment to the same extent as a fine of equal magnitude to the value of the property.
Criminal punishments require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
To understand this claim, you need to know the difference between judicial and administrative forfeiture procedures. Judicial forfeitures commence with the government filing a forfeiture complaint in court, and the proceedings are at all times under the supervision of a federal judge, just like any other federal case. The agency starts the administrative forfeiture process by seizing the property and, eventually, sending out a forfeiture notice by mail. Except for vehicles seized in drug cases, there is no deadline requiring them to send out notice within a certain amount of time after they've seized property. Failure to post the bond within the allotted 20 or 30 days, means you lose your right to any hearings in court to contest the forfeiture of your property.