Court Opinion

ID: 9478981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:05:16.451735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:45.551047
License: Public Domain

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the conclusions reached by my brothers that the funds restrained pursuant to the provisions of § 853 may be used to pay legitimate attorney’s fees in the criminal trial, and that any such money paid to Marquez’s defense counsel shall be exempt from subsequent forfeiture under § 853(c). I write separately to emphasize that we should unambiguously affirm Judge Goettel’s order issued pursuant to his jurisdictional powers under § 853 — particularly since the court’s authority premised upon § 881 is far from clear.
While the government would have us decide that our holding in United States v. Monsanto, 852 F.2d 1400 (2d Cir.1988), should not be extended to civil forfeiture actions brought pursuant to § 881, we should decline to consider that issue today. Rather, the question which compels our attention is whether the government may avoid the application of our decision in Monsanto by instituting a civil action when the same funds were subject to restraint under § 853.
We should reject the temptation to view this matter through the procedural blinders the government would have us wear. Judge Goettel saw the need to lift both the criminal and civil restraints that had been imposed upon the $876,915.00 in order to provide Marquez the relief he sought in the criminal action. We need only determine whether the district court had the authority to grant that relief by virtue of the court’s power over the funds.
While resolution of this case may appear difficult — because it ostensibly rests solely on the court’s civil jurisdiction under § 881 — when viewed from the perspective of § 853(e)(1)(A) and our decision in Monsanto, the solution becomes obvious. Judge Goettel initially issued orders restraining the funds in the criminal action at the government’s request. Under § 853 restraints may be imposed, “to preserve the availability of property ... for forfeiture under this section_" 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1) (emphasis supplied). As the majority properly noted, those restraints remain in effect today. The question of the court’s jurisdiction in the civil action is much more problematic, however. It is not clear to what extent Chief Judge Brieant properly asserted jurisdiction over the money. See, e.g., Penn. Gen. Casualty Co. v. Penn., 294 U.S. 189, 198, 55 S.Ct. 386, 390, 79 L.Ed. 850 (1935) (where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a res, the one taking possession first acquires exclusive jurisdiction to the extent necessary for the appropriate control and disposition of the property). This principle applies where a court must control the property to give effect to its orders, see Lankenau v. Coggeshall & Hicks, 350 F.2d 61 (2d Cir.1965), and is implicated when there exists a contemporaneous exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by federal courts. Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1246, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). A disposition of the funds by another court inconsistent with the existing orders of Judge Goettel and dictates of § 853 may, therefore, have been invalid.
It is clear that Judge Goettel first invoked jurisdiction over the cash pursuant to § 853, preparatory to criminal forfeiture. Forfeiture only occurs after an accused is convicted under § 853. In contrast, § 881(h) provides that title to property vests in the United States upon commission of an act giving rise to forfeiture under that section. The government’s failure to inform Judge Brieant of developments in the criminal action is partially responsible for the simultaneous exercise of power over the $876,915.00 by judges acting pursuant to conflicting legal standards. The result has been the unseemly jurisdictional friction that courts should avoid. Penn. Gen. Casualty, at 196-98, 55 S.Ct. at 389-90.
In Monsanto we held that § 853 does not prohibit a criminal defendant from using assets otherwise subject to restraint, to pay legitimate attorney’s fees. Whatever disagreements there may be with the un*109derlying rationales put forward for Monsanto, its holding, unless and until the Supreme Court instructs us otherwise, controls the outcome of this case.