United States v. Monsanto

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that comparable language of federal criminal forfeiture statute precluded exemption of assets used to pay attorney because \any property\ is broad and unambiguous
• holding that § 853’s forfeiture provisions operated with equal force to monies the defendant sought to use to retain a lawyer
• holding that seizure of assets which defendants could otherwise have used to pay their attorneys did not .violate the Sixth Amendment
• holding that § 853’s forfeiture provisions operated with equal force to monies the defendant sought to use to retain a lawyer
• holding that comparable language of federal criminal forfeiture statute precluded exemption of assets used to pay attorney because \any property\ is broad and unambiguous
• stating that “ ‘[permitting a defendant to use assets for private purposes that ... will become the property of the United States if a conviction occurs cannot be sanctioned’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).