Legal Document

491 U.S. 600 109 S.Ct. 2657 105 L.Ed.2d 512 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Peter MONSANTO. No. 88-454. Argued March 21, 1989. Decided June 22, Syllabus Respondent, who allegedly directed a large-scale heroin distribution enterprise, was indicted for alleged violations of racketeering laws, creation continuing criminal and tax firearm offenses. The indictment also that respondent had accumulated three specified assets as result his narcotics trafficking, which were subject to forfeiture under the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act 1984, 21 U.S.C. § 853. After unsealed, District Court granted Government's ex parte motion 853(e)(1)(A) restraining order freezing pending trial. raising various statutory arguments claiming interfered with Sixth Amendment right counsel choice, moved vacate permit him use frozen retain an attorney. He sought declaration if used pay attorney's fees, 853(c)'s third-party transfer provision would not be reclaim such payments convicted forfeited. denied motion. However, Appeals ultimately ordered modified restrained fees. Held: 1. There is no exemption from 853's or pretrial provisions defendant wishes Pp. 606-614. (a) Section language plain unambiguous. Congress could have chosen stronger words express its intent mandatory than 853(a)'s upon conviction person "shall forfeit . any property" sentencing court order" forfeiture. Likewise, statute provides broad definition property does even hint at idea fees are included. Every has finally passed on this argument agreed view. Neither Act's legislative history nor legislators' postenactment statements support respondent's exception should created because expressly include simply did consider prospect reach property. To contrary, in Victims Crime Act—which requires defendant's collateral profits derived crimes enacted simultaneously question—Congress adopted precise seeking implied Moreover, admonition courts construe statutes avoid decision their constitutionality license judiciary rewrite language. 606-611. (b) Respondent's reading 853(e)(1)(A)—which district "may enter injunction take other action preserve availability forfeiture"—misapprehends nature 853 by giving equitable discretion determine whether exempt restraint concluding they may subsequently seized Government 853(c). plainly aimed implementing commands cannot sensibly construed give dissipation very it forfeited conviction, since nullify strong well powerful "relation-back" provision. 611-614. 2. violate choice protected Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. For reasons stated Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, post, p. 617, neither adjudged forfeitable legal before based finding probable cause believe forfeitable. See, e.g., States $8,850, 461 555, 103 2005, 76 143; Calero-Toledo Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 663, 94 2080, 40 452. Indeed, restrain odd considering that, appropriate circumstances, persons accused serious offense probable-cause finding. See Salerno, 481 739, 107 2095, 95 697. 614-616. 852 F.2d 1400 (CA 2, 1988), reversed remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, SCALIA KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, MARSHALL STEVENS, joined, 635. Acting Sol. Gen. William C. Bryson, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Edward M. Chikofsky, New York City, respondent. Justice WHITE Court. 1 questions presented here federal drug authorizes possession, where seeks those attorney; so, we must decide permissible Constitution. We answer both these affirmative. 2 * In July 1987, entered, alleging enterprise. multicount enterprise (CCE), specific assets—a home, apartment, $35,000 cash—had been trafficking. These assets, alleged, 1984 (CFA), 98 Stat. 2044, amended, 853(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V), "property constituting, proceeds obtained" drug-law violations.1 3 On same day motion, pursuant 853(e)(1)(A),2 above-mentioned Shortly thereafter, order, o further transfers forfeited.3 Respondent raised challenges claimed choice. vacate. 4 appeal, Second Circuit concluded lacking, but remanded case adversarial hearing "at government ha[d] burden demonstrate likelihood forfeitable"; failed hearing, held, paid attorney irrespective final outcome 836 74, 84 (1987). Pursuant mandate, remand, held 4-day proper. At end ruled continue "overwhelmingly established likelihood" question App. Pet. Cert. 86a. Ultimately, proceeded trial, he represented Criminal Act-appointed attorney.4 5 meantime, vacated earlier heard appeal en banc.5 banc court, 8-to-4 vote, Court's (1988). sharply divided rationale. Three judges found violated Amendment, while others questioned grounds; two suspect failure requiring sort panel first place. four upheld order. 6 certiorari, 488 941, 363, 102 353 (1988), Circuit's conflict among Courts over constitutional presented.6 now reverse. II 7 address requires, intends attorneys. A. 8 "In determining scope statute, look language." Turkette, 452 576, 580, 101 2524, 2527, 69 246 (1981). us, unambiguous: all falling within existing anything else, matter. 9 As observed above, offenses charged commission setting out rule, repeats later text described 853(a). cases applied, broader define what "property" when describing types section's scope: "real tangible intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, claims, securities." 853(b) V). Nothing all-inclusive listing hints statute's meaning. 10 Nor alone unambiguous failing exclude This argument, advanced here, see Brief 12-19, unanimously rejected every it,7 below, F.2d, 78-80; id., 85-86 (Oakes, dissenting); concurred grounds accept position, 1405-1410 (Winter, concurring). note American Bar Association Amicus Curiae frankly admits "on [its] face, broadly cover[s] activity contain[s] bona fide attorneys' fees." 11 urges nonetheless, interpret several reasons. Principally, contends create and/or support, observes "silent" question, House Senate debates fail discuss prospect.8 But proves nothing: congressional similarly silent stock-broker's laundry bills, country club memberships; one credibly argue result, purposes fact reaches though contains effect, " 'does ambiguity' statute: 'It demonstrates breadth.' Sedima, S.P.R.L. Imrex 473 479, 499, 3275, 3286, 87 346 (1985) (quoting Haroco, Inc. Nat. Bank Trust Co. Chicago, 747 384, 398 (CA7 1984)). issue unambiguous, Congress' supplement comprehensive phrase "any property"—with exclamatory "and mean attorney" lessen force 12 find unavailing reliance comments legislators—made following enactment—to effect anticipate law seize 15-16, n. (citing Sen. Leahy Reps. Hughes Shaw). noted before, views "form hazardous basis inferring intent" behind Price, 361 304, 313, 80 326, 331, 334 (1960); instead, "best determined [looking to] chooses," S.P.R.L., supra, 495, 13, S.Ct., 3284, 13. observe refused act repeated suggestions defense bar here,9 amended respects entreaties heard. Pub.L. 99-570, §§ 1153(b), 1864, 100 3207-13, 3207-54. 13 addition, CFA—Pub.L. 98-473, 1837 special (e.g., books, movies, etc.) derives crimes. 2175-2176 (now codified 18 3681-3682 V)). That exempts "pay[ments] representation matters arising convicted, more 20 percent total [forfeited profits] so used." 3681(c)(1)(B)(ii). Thus, expressly—in review case—the asks us imply into Chapter XIV 98-473 indicates understood doing omitting III enactment. 14 Finally, 20-29, invoke variety general canons construction, prudential doctrines advances; our constitutionality. J. DeBartolo Corp. Florida Gulf Coast Building Constr. Trades Council, 485 568, 575, 108 1392, 1397, 99 645 (1988); NLRB. Catholic Bishop 440 490, 500, 1313, 1318, 59 533 (1979). respect canons, quite often useful close cases, ambiguous. "interpretative canon[s are] legislature." Albertini, 472 675, 680, 2897, 2902, 86 536 (1985). Here, clear comprehensive: provisions. 15 sum, whatever there might claim necessary fees—based theories about purpose, implications interpretative understandings individual Members scope—"[t]he short write way." Naftalin, 441 768, 773, 2077, 2081, 60 624 B 16 Although recognizes attorney, urged orders possession interpreted exemption. It ground Judge Winter below. 1405-1411. 17 subsection application, section." 853(e)(1) read permissive quality (i.e., enter") authorize employ "traditional principles equity" assets; balancing hardships, concluded, generally weighed against 1406. subjected 853(e), Government, notwithstanding authorization 853(c) recoupment transferred third parties seriously misapprehends question. said, categorical: reference 853(e) 853(c), let indicating limited sections. Perhaps some limit necessarily inconsistent case. Under 853(e)(1), trial "may" requests it, otherwise, required bond means "preserve section forfeiture" employed. conviction. 19 "equitable discretion" given judge turns far concerned: concludes excluded 1407-1409. word becomes not." command (and 853(c)) frustrate attainment ends. construction improvident. Whatever gave cabined it: "to forfeiture." intended effectiveness proceeds" 853(a), nullified statute. seem harsh, little doubt mandates. states "[a]ll right, title, interest [forfeitable] vests rise Permitting private provision, will become occurs sanctioned. view supported relevant history, "[t]he sole purpose [§ 853's] status quo, i.e., assure disposition case." S.Rep. 98-225, 204 (1983), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News pp. 3182, 3387. If, interpretation Winter's concurrence achieved. conclude enacting 853, decided old adage "crime pay." evidence modify nostrum read, pay, except supporting amici vigorously assert, mistaken intent, body can amend otherwise provide. presently written, way. 22 Having authorized entered 23 most sweeping claims matter, operation interferes defenda t's guarantee afforded Amendment's "balance forces" between Government. regard, contends, mere post-trial enough deter representing him. 24 another announce today, 2646, 528, hold Constitution rely conclusion dispose similar here. 25 addition issues convicted—and forfeitable—raises distinct concerns. conclude, however, way forfeitable.10 26 previously permitted proved 143 (1983); (1974). ousted merely disposing governmental intrusion less severe prior decisions. 27 home apartment cause, (under circumstances), committed offense. 697 Given gravity indictment, himself deemed "reasonably [his] appearance [at trial] safety community," 3142(e) V); infirmity 853(e)'s protect "appearance" community's full recovery ill-gotten gains. 28 put retaining attorney), require departure rule permitting cause. disagree. weighing interests suggests may—without offending Amendment—obtain wished 528. holding, "arbitrarily" interfere "fair opportunity" counsel. Cf. Powell Alabama, 287 45, 69, 53, 53 55, 64, 58, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). Put way: may, post-trial, forbid then surely violation when, after adequately established, obtains barring frustrating dissipating IV 29 judgment reversed, proceedings consistent opinion. 30 ordered. CFA added classes law, CCE offenses, 2040-2053, amended. provides: "§ forfeitures "(a) Property "Any subchapter chapter punishable imprisonment year shall State law— "(1) from, obtained, directly indirectly, violation; "(2) person's used, manner part, commit, facilitate of, "(3) engaging 848 forfeit, paragraph (1) (2), in, against, contractual rights affording source control over, "The imposing sentence person, imposed chapter, subsection. lieu fine fined twice gross proceeds." principal focus petition, says that: "Upon application 853] section— "(A) filing information charging would, event 853(e)(1). "All section. Any verdict thereafter unless transferee [establishes entitlement 853(n)]." quotation making file petition 853(n)(6): "If, [a] [on petition], determines petitioner that— [that predates] acts 853]; "(B) purchaser value time purchase reasonably without section; "the accordance determination." An payment 853(n)(6) presumably rest (B) quoted (for explain U.S., 632, 10, 2656, 10) highly doubtful defends client results prove "without 1400, 1410 (CA2 1988) charges him, jury returned beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, declared do subsequent render dispute moot. remains 77a-78a, yet decided. Consequently, concerning live one. commenced February 16, 1988, hear banc, rendered ruling. remained frozen, defended appointed midst trial—on 1, 1988—the days later, offered hire offer, coming summations get underway 41/2-month instead continued weeks 25, guilty verdict. Moya-Gomez, 860 706 1988); Nichols, 841 1485 (CA10 Jones, 837 1332 (CA5), rehearing granted, 844 215 re Hearing Chartered, 637 (CA4 (en banc) aff'd sub nom. Bissell, 866 1343, 1348-1350 (CA11 1989); 722-723; 1491-1496; 1509 (Logan, 641-642 banc); 651 (Phillips, dissenting). Only Appeals—the Circuit—has issued decisions providing see, ruling currently being reconsidered correct large, Reports make mention discussing background motivating adoption CFA, Judiciary Committee discussed previous, lax statutes: "One publicized il ustrative problem. Meinster. prosecution organization grossed $300 million 16-month period. Federal completed successful primary defendants major aborted. attempted only [residences] worth $750,000. "Of $750,000 residences, $175,000 wife defendants, $559,000 wound up $16,000. "It present procedures tested wanting." H.R.Rep. 98-845, pt. (1984) (emphasis added). passage suggests, least, frustration diversion large amounts certainly suggest part piece preenactment history: footnote Report newly proposed assets. "Nothing Committee, therefore, resolve opinions impinge Id., 19, argues Committee's disclaimer resolving understanding employed freeze legitimate 14, 8. ambiguous opposite proposition well, refrained disapproving imposed. Bello, 470 F.Supp. 723, 724-725 (SD Cal.1979)). statement applied contrary appears nothing exhortation tread carefully delicate area. Attorneys' Fees Forfeiture: Judiciary, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., 148-213 (1986); Issues: Subcommittee 1st 187-242 initial consideration case, entry order; extensive, Though petitioned holding required, I, prevailed pointless Clause. Furthermore, Appeals, decision, procedural due process issue, inquire hearing—if all—was adequate

Classification Label: 0