Case o' The Week: Hidden Dough a Ninth No-Go - Hernandez-Escobar and Due Process Rights in Forfeiture Proceedings
Hiding money from a
spouse?
Avoid stashing it with a drug-dealing son.
United States v. Hernandez-Escobar, 2018 WL
6693487 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2019), decision available here.
Players:
Decision by Judge Fisher, joined by Judges Berzon and Watford.
Facts: Roberto Hernandez (“Roberto”) pleaded guilty to
drug charges. In his plea agreement, he agreed to forfeit $73,000 in cash that
was found in his bedroom, alongside thirteen pounds of meth, guns, and pay-owe
sheets. Id.
After the plea, Roberto’s father (“Mr.
Hernandez”) filed a claim on that money. Id.
Mr. Hernandez claimed it was his cash.
Mr. Hernandez explained that he had stored the dough in shoeboxes, and stashed it
with his son to protect it from his wife during marital difficulties. Id. at *2.
Before the forfeiture hearing, the AUSA met
with Roberto. When Roberto (generally) confirmed his father’s story, the AUSA
reminded Roberto of his plea agreement, said he thought Roberto was lying, and
warned of potential false statement charges. Id. Not surprisingly, Roberto then asserted the Fifth at his father's forfeiture hearing. Id.
The district court found that the cash was
drug proceeds, denied Mr. Hernandez’s “bailor” argument, and forfeited the
funds. Id.
Issue(s): “[Mr. Hernandez] argues that he is a bailor whose title to the cash
is superior to the Government’s, and also that his due process rights were
violated because his son did not testify at the hearing.” Id. at *1.
Held: “We affirm.” Id.
“In Alcaraz-Garcia, we ruled that
for the purpose of calculating the time to appeal, a criminal forfeiture
proceeding is civil in nature . . . We need not determine whether this
reasoning in Alcaraz-Garcia extends
to due process questions, because even if Mr. Hernandez was entitled to due
process protections coextensive with those afforded to criminal defendants, he
has not shown a violation.” Id. at *6
(internal quotations and citation omitted).
Of Note: The main holding of Hernandez-Escobar is a predictable affirmance of the factual
findings of the district court. A far more interesting question is the due
process rights of a third party seeking funds slated for forfeiture.
As noted above, Judge Fisher
skirts that question by holding that Mr. Hernandez (the father) suffered no due
process violation in any event – the son was not (we are told) coerced into not
testifying. This due process question remains an intriguing issue for another day.
How to Use:
What happens when a prosecutor bullies a central defense witness into silence,
by threatening perjury charges? Judge Fisher delves into that problem, in the
context of the – "admonitions" – this prosecutor gave to the defendant (the
father’s key witness). Id. at *7.
Judge Fisher warns that, “In other
circumstances, a prosecutor’s stated belief that a potential witness is lying
might be an unnecessarily strong admonition, but not on these facts.” Id. at *6 (internal quotations and
citation omitted).
This discussion in Herandez-Escobar is worth a close read when dealing with a “dissuading”
AUSA: on slightly different facts, the prosecutor here might have well crossed the
line.
The Hon. United States Attorney David Anderson |
For Further
Reading: Trump-nominee David Anderson is officially the new United States
Attorney for the Northern District of California. On January 2, 2019, Mr.
Anderson was confirmed by voice vote in the Senate. See Congressional site here.
The Honorable Anderson takes the corner office in the midst of a
long government shutdown, as federal investigators work without pay, AUSAs ask
for delays of civil cases, and the Judiciary contemplates contingencies just to
pay juror fees. See NYT article here.
Welcome back to the Federal Building, Dave.
Image
of money in shoebox from https://news.dailytoast.com/blogs/after-60-years-of-marriage-a-man-finds-95-000-in-a-shoe-box-in-his-wi.
Image of the Hon. U.S Attorney David Anderson from https://www.sidley.com/en/people/a/anderson-dave.
Steven
Kalar, Federal Public Defender N.D. Cal. Website available at www.ndcal.org
.
Labels: Due Process, Fisher, Forfeiture, Perjury, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Sixth Amendment Right to Present a Defense
1 Comments:
ASS..WR.WB.SAYA PAK RESKY TKI BRUNAY DARUSALAM INGIN BERTERIMA KASIH BANYAK KEPADA EYANG WORO MANGGOLO,YANG SUDAH MEMBANTU ORANG TUA SAYA KARNA SELAMA INI ORANG TUA SAYA SEDANG TERLILIT HUTANG YANG BANYAK,BERKAT BANTUAN EYANG SEKARAN ORANG TUA SAYA SUDAH BISA MELUNASI SEMUA HUTAN2NYA,DAN SAWAH YANG DULUNYA SEMPAT DI GADAIKAN SEKARAN ALHAMDULILLAH SUDAH BISA DI TEBUS KEMBALI,ITU SEMUA ATAS BANTUAN EYANG WORO MANGGOLO MEMBERIKAN ANGKA RITUALNYA KEPADA KAMI DAN TIDAK DI SANGKA SANGKA TERNYATA BERHASIL,BAGI ANDA YANG INGIN DIBANTU SAMA SEPERTI KAMI SILAHKAN HUBUNGI NO HP EYANG WORO MANGGOLO (0823-9177-2208) JANGAN ANDA RAGU ANGKA RITUAL EYANG WORO MANGGOLO SELALU TEPAT DAN TERBUKTI INI BUKAN REKAYASA SAYA SUDAH MEMBUKTIKAN NYA TERIMAH KASIH
NO HP EYANG WORO MANGGOLO (0823-9177-2208)
BUTUH ANGKA GHOIB HASIL RTUAL EYANG WORO MANGGOLO
DIJAMIN TIDAK MENGECEWAKAN ANDA APAPUN ANDA MINTA INSYA ALLAH PASTI DIKABULKAN BERGAUNLAH SECEPATNYA BERSAMA KAMI JANGAN SAMPAI ANDA MENYESAL
angka;GHOIB: singapura
angka;GHOIB: hongkong
angka;GHOIB; malaysia
angka;GHOIB; toto magnum
angka”GHOIB; laos…
angka”GHOIB; macau
angka”GHOIB; sidney
angka”GHOIB: vietnam
angka”GHOIB: korea
angka”GHOIB: brunei
angka”GHOIB: china
angka”GHOIB: thailand
Post a Comment
<< Home