Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The government's ability to freeze a defendant's assets pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Section 853(e) before trial and the resulting impact on the defendant's constitutional right to counsel of his choice is currently before the Supreme Court in Kaley v. United States, 12-464 (Oct. 15, 2012). That case focuses on whether defendants who need potentially forfeitable money to hire counsel are entitled to challenge the evidentiary support and legal theory of the underlying charges at a pretrial hearing or are limited to challenging the determination that the restrained assets are connected to the alleged criminal activity. The Circuit Courts of Appeal are split.
The Second, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits have held that a pretrial hearing regarding frozen assets can address whether probable cause exists to believe that the defendant is guilty of the crime that makes the assets forfeitable. The Eleventh, Tenth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits have held that defendants only are allowed to challenge the grand jury's finding of probable cause to believe the restrained assets are linked to the crime with which the defendant is charged. U.S. v. Kaley, 677 F.3d 1316, 1329 n.9 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing decisions from other Circuits).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.