Plumides, Romano, and Johnson, PC

Plumides, Romano, and Johnson, PC

  • FacebookFacebook
  • LinkedInLinkedIn
  • YoutubeYoutube
  • TwitterTwitter
  • Google My BusinessGoogle My Business
  • 704-333-9900
  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Gregory Plumides
    • Michael Romano
    • Richard B. Johnson
    • Toni Primiano
    • David M. Krusch
    • Clint Davis
    • Edward S. (“Ted”) Shapack
    • Our Staff
    • Our History
  • Practice Areas
    • Family
      Law
    • Criminal Defense
    • Personal Injury
    • Workers Compensation
  • Education Library
    • Family Law FAQ
      • Child Support Calculator
    • Criminal Defense FAQ
    • Personal Injury FAQ
    • Workers Compensation FAQ
    • Video Center
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact

Right to counsel may not include right to pay counsel

May 18, 2015

In a case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, the government has argued that its interests in obtaining recovery of government funds obtained through fraud takes precedence over the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. If the Supreme Court takes the case, North Carolina criminal defendants may find themselves without the ability to pay for the counsel that the Sixth Amendment gives them the right to retain.

The owner of two healthcare companies is accused of paying bribes to patients to sign up for care they did not need or did not receive. At the same time as the criminal indictment, the government filed a civil action to freeze all of the defendant’s assets up to $45 million, the total amount of allegedly fraudulent payments received. Because the defendant’s net worth was less than $45 million, the asset freeze left her broke and unable to afford counsel.

The trial judge concluded that civil forfeiture laws allowed the government to freeze tainted funds received as a result of the fraud scheme as well as untainted assets from other sources that could later be used to substitute for the tainted funds if the defendant was eventually convicted of fraud. The Court of Appeals upheld the judge’s decision, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case highlights the government’s aggressive use of civil forfeiture statutes as a tactic in prosecuting fraud cases. The government claims the primary interest is preserving assets so that funds can be recovered in the event of a guilty verdict. The defendant claims that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel protects her right to retain untainted assets to hire a lawyer for her defense. A decision in favor of the government could result in more criminal defendants accepting plea agreements, assuming that without effective counsel, the chances of acquittal are slim.

Recent Posts

  • Child custody decisions can be affected by living arrangements
  • Can a DWI Affect My Child Custody Case?
  • Workplace and Divorce
  • I Lost My License – How Am I Supposed to Get to Work?
  • When Divorce Mediation Isn’t Appropriate

Categories

  • Blog (28)
  • Child Custody (20)
  • Criminal Defense (26)
  • Divorce (58)
  • Domestic Violence (6)
  • Drug Charges (14)
  • Drunk Driving Charges (18)
  • Family Law (8)
  • Felonies (6)
  • Firm News (1)
  • High Asset Divorce (17)
  • Marriage – Pre-nup (8)
  • Traffic violation (2)

Archives

  • August 2021 (14)
  • July 2021 (2)
  • June 2021 (2)
  • May 2021 (1)
  • April 2021 (11)
  • February 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • November 2018 (2)
  • October 2018 (2)
  • September 2018 (5)
  • August 2018 (5)
  • July 2018 (5)
  • June 2018 (9)
  • May 2018 (3)
  • April 2018 (6)
  • March 2018 (6)
  • February 2018 (5)
  • January 2018 (6)
  • December 2017 (5)
  • November 2017 (7)
  • October 2017 (4)
  • September 2017 (2)
  • August 2017 (5)
  • July 2017 (3)
  • June 2017 (4)
  • May 2017 (3)
  • April 2017 (3)
  • July 2015 (2)
  • June 2015 (2)
  • May 2015 (2)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • March 2015 (3)
  • February 2015 (2)
  • January 2015 (2)
  • December 2014 (3)
  • November 2014 (2)
  • October 2014 (2)
  • September 2014 (2)
  • August 2014 (2)
  • July 2014 (2)
  • June 2014 (2)
  • May 2014 (2)
  • April 2014 (2)
  • March 2014 (2)
  • February 2014 (2)
  • January 2014 (2)
  • December 2013 (1)

What our clients are saying

Mr. Romano is an amazing family law attorney.  He has been my attorney for over 5 years and I have never been disappointed.  His experience and expertise in Family law, in my opinion, supersedes all others in the field.  Mr. Romano and his team are very knowledgeable, thorough, professional, and personable. I highly recommend Mr. Romano and his team without reservations. If you're in need of a Family law attorney, Mr. Romano is your guy!
-Ivette C
You never know all the questions you should ask so it was a blessing that they listened and provided plenty of recommendations as well as assisted with claim, deeds etc. They know what to expect and provided a service without being pushy and will go at a pace you want and explain the laws so that you can understand all the legal speak.
-Paul S

CONTACT US

You deserve to have a skilled legal advocate on your side who will protect your best interests. We will do just that.

To schedule a consultation, please call our office in Charlotte at 704-333-9900, or contact us online. Plumides, Romano & Johnson

2115 Rexford Road, Suite 320 Charlotte NC 28211
704-333-9900
704-358-0536

 

charlotte-family-divorce-separation-alimony-childsupport-dui-dwi-defence-trial-attorneys

Plumides, Romano & Johnson, PC

Explore

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Contact Us

Resource

  • Education Library
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Sitemap

Follow

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Youtube
  • Twitter
  • Google My Business

Legal

  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy
704-333-9900
CONTACT US
2115 Rexford Road, Suite 320 Charlotte NC 28211

Child Support Calculator
x