UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
STEVE FAFOWORA, A/K/A OLATUNDE FAFOWORA, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant's convictions are affirmed.
Appellant's Sixth Amendment claim regarding right to counsel of choice was considered on appeal from the District Court. A question was certified to t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forfeiture Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s claim under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice was considered on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was briefed by the parties and argued orally by counsel. On January 13,1989, we certified this question to the Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Fafowora, 865 F. 2d 360 (D.C.Cir.1989). On February 21, 1989, the Supreme Court dismissed the certified question. United States v. Fafowora, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1105, 103 L.Ed.2d 171 (1989). Therefore, this court has given the issue full consideration. It is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that appellant’s convictions be affirmed for the reasons stated In re Forfeiture Hearing as to Caplin & Drysdale, 837 F. 2d 637 (4th Cir.1988) (en banc), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 363, 102 L.Ed.2d 352 (1988).*
The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.
*
Chief Judge Wald would find that under the appropriate Sixth Amendment analysis the government's interest in seizing forfeitable assets to prevent their dissipation does not outweigh the defendant’s interest in using a reasonable portion of those assets, in the absence of other funds, to retain counsel of choice. See United States v. Monsanto, 852 F. 2d 1400, 1402-04 (2d Cir.1988) (Opinion of Feinberg, C.J.); United States v. Unit No. 7 and Unit No. 8 of Shop In the Grove Condominium, 853 F. 2d 1445 (8th Cir.1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
John DOE Agency v. John DOE Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1989)
-
Vaughn v. United States, 936 F.2d 862 (6th Cir. 1991)
-
Nixon v. United States, 978 F.2d 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Forfeiture Hearing AS TO Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, 837 F.2d 637 (4th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Monsanto, 852 F.2d 1400 (2d Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Unit NO. 7 & Unit NO. 8 OF Shop IN THE Grove Condo., 853 F.2d 1445 (8th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Fafowora, 865 F.2d 360 (D.C. Cir. 1989)