Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: Joe Francis <[Joe Francis] at [dartmouth.edu]>
Subject: NY Times carries front page story on forfeiture
Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 21:13:14 GMT

In todays (Monday, May 31st, 1993) New York Times there is a front page
story entitled "Seized Property In Crime Cases Causes Concern".

Interesting reading.  Included is the following:

-----------

[...]

Indeed, internal memorandums that have recently come to light suggest
that the need to meet a budget target has sometimes been at least as
important to the Justice Department as fighting crime.  In August 1990,
Attorney General Dick Thornburgh warned all Federal prosecutors that the
department was far short of its projections of $470 million in
forfeiture deposits and that there were only three months remaining in
fiscal year 1990.

"We must significantly increase production to reach our budget target,"
the memorandum said.  "Failure to achieve the $470 million projection
would expose the department's forfeiture program to criticism and
undermine confidence in our budget projections.  Every effort must be
made to increase forfeiture income during the remaining three months."

[...]

Both [Republican Rep. from Illinois Henry J.] Hyde and [Democratic Rep.
from Michigan John] Conyers are drawing up bills that would shift the
burden of proof for asset seizures onto the Government, a move that
would significantly reduce the number of forfeitures.  Mr. Conyers's
would also make forfeiture possible only after criminal convictions.

-----------

If anyone knows anything about the proposed legislation, I'd love to
hear about it.  I very much want forfeitures to require a 
conviction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	"Although it may be a distinction without a difference," the
 appellate judges wrote, "the court did not say the defendant was a
 jerk, only that he was 'being a jerk'."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------