7 Civil Trial Proceedings

• Library: Asset Forfeiture: Practice and Procedure in State and Federal Courts (ABA) (2014 Ed.)

7Civil Trial Proceedings

A. Trial Setting

Because asset forfeiture cases are civil matters, trial setting is usually governed by the federal or state civil rules of procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11488.5(c)(3). This means that a trial date will not be set until it is requested or assigned by the court pursuant to the applicable civil procedure rules.

However, because of the quasi-criminal nature of forfeiture proceedings, see Boyd v. United States,116 U.S. 616, 634-35 (1886), and the potential link to a pending criminal case, some state jurisdictions have set unique rules that conflict with the general civil rules of procedure.

These jurisdictions emphasize that, although the civil procedure rules apply, priority is to be given to forfeiture actions over other civil actions. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.1173; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11488.5(c)(1). This reminds court staff that forfeiture actions should be placed on an expedited hearing calendar.

A few states set a specific time within which the forfeiture case is to be set or heard. See Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 712A-12(6). This could range from as short as 14 days, see Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 § 4244, to 90 days, see N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 318-B:17-b IV(c). In certain states, those time periods are merely directory, State v. Residential Unit & Real Estate, 26 K.A.2d 260; 983 P.2d 865, 867 (Kan. 1999); Howard County v. Connolley, 137 Md. App. 99; 767 A.2d 926; 932 (Md. App. 2001), but others consider them mandatory, and failure to comply may result in the court losing jurisdiction. See In re Property Seized from Williams, 676 N.W.2d 607, 612 (Iowa 2004); State v. Rosen, 72 Wis. 2d 200; 240 N.W. 2d 168, 171-72 (Wisc. 1976).

A few jurisdictions provide that the civil forfeiture trial shall be heard in conjunction with any related criminal action as a bifurcated matter before the same trier of fact, with the criminal procedure rules applying to the criminal trial, and the civil procedure rules to the civil forfeiture. See Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11488.4(i)(3), (5); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 131A.270; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-27-6C(1)-(2). To facilitate the trial setting of these matters, the civil file generally is assigned to the trial department hearing the criminal case, and the forfeiture matter is assigned to trail it. If the court fails to retain the same jury for the bifurcated forfeiture trial, it may lose jurisdiction leading to the reversal of the forfeiture judgment. People v. Ten Thousand One Hundred Fifty Three Dollars and Thirty Eight Cents ($10,153.38) U.S. Currency, 179 Cal. App. 4th 1520, 1527 (2009).

If an incarcerated claimant desires to attend the trial, he or she should seek a motion to be transported for the trial because neither the state nor the court is obligated to transfer an inmate to testify in a civil hearing. State v. Scott, 933 S.W.2d 884, 887 (Mo. App. 1996); State v One 1980 Cadillac, 2001 UT 26; 21 P.3d 212, 216 (Utah 2001); State v. Property Located at No. 70 Oakland Street, 727 So.2d 1240, 1244-45 (La. App. 1999).

The practitioner must become familiar with the relevant statutes and trial setting procedures for the jurisdiction in which he or she is practicing. The practitioner must also bear in mind that, in those states that have specific deadlines for the trial setting or requirements that it be heard in conjunction with a pending criminal action, it may be difficult to conduct any meaningful civil discovery prior to the forfeiture hearing, unless the dates set for discovery compliance are substantially shortened by court order.

B. Right to Jury Trial

Because asset forfeiture cases are civil actions, the right to a jury trial will depend on the law of the specific jurisdiction. In most federal civil forfeiture actions, the right to a jury trial is guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment, United States v. One Lincoln Navigator 1998, 328 F.3d 1011, 1014 n. 2 (8th Cir. 2003); however, that right may be waived unless the claimant makes a timely demand. See Supplemental Rule G(9); United States v. 110 Bars of Silver, 508 F.2d 799, 801 (5th Cir. 1975). Under federal rules, the demand for a jury trial is made at the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) & (d). Federal practitioners must remember to make this demand early in the proceeding.

Table 7-1 Summary of State Asset Forfeiture Statutes State Trial Procedures

State	Jury Trial	Court Trial
Alaska		Alaska Stat. § 17.30.116(c)
Arkansas		Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-505(h)
California	Cal. Health & Saf. § 11488.4(i)(5)
Colorado		Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 16-13-307(7); 16-13-505(6)
Delaware	Brown v. State, 721 A.2d 1263, 1266 (Del. S. Ct. 1998)
Florida	Fla. Stat. Ann. § 932.704
Georgia		Ga. Code Ann. § 16-13-49(o)(5)
Idaho	Idaho Dept. of Law Enforcement ex rel. Cade v. Real Property Located in Minidoka County, 126 Idaho 422; 885 P.2d 381, 386 (Idaho 1994)
Illinois	People ex rel. O'Malley v. 6323 North LaCrosse Ave., 158 Ill. 2d 453; 634 N.E.2d 743, 746 (Ill. 1994)
Iowa		Iowa Code Ann. § 809A.13
Kansas		Kansas Code Ann. § 60-4113(g)
Louisiana		La. Stat. Ann § 40:2612G; State v. Clark, 670 So. 2d 493, 501 (La. App. 1996)
Maine	State v. One 1981 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 728 A.2d 1259, 1261 (Me. 1999)
Massachusetts	Com. v. One 1972 Chevrolet Van, 385 Mass. 198; 431 N.E.2d 209, 211 (Mass. 1982)
Michigan		In re Forfeiture of 301 Cass Street, 194 Mich. App. 381; 487 N.W.2d 795, 798 (Mich. App. 1992)
Mississippi		Miss. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 94-0352
Missouri	Mo. Ann. Stat. § 513.612
Montana		Mont. Code Ann. § 44-12-203(3)
New Jersey	State v. One 1990 Honda Accord, 154 N.J. 373; 712 A.2d 1148, 1157 (N.J. 1998)
New Mexico	N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-27-6.C
New York	Matter of Vergari v. Marcus, 26 N.Y.2d 764; 309 N.Y.S. 2d 204; 257 N.E.2d 652, 653 (N.Y. 1970); N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 1311(2)
North Dakota		State v. $17,515.00 in Cash Money,2003 ND 168; 670 N.W.2d 826, 828 (N.D. 2003)
Ohio	Ohio Rev. Stat. § 2981.08 (B)
Pennsylvania	Com. v. One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400) in U.S. Currency, 667 A.2d 452, 454 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995); Com. v. One (1) 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe, 530 Pa. 523; 610 A.2d 36, 41 (Pa. 1992)
Rhode Island	R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28-5.04.2(j)(1)
South Carolina	Medlock v. 1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up, 308 S.C. 68; 417 S.E.2d 85, 86 (S.C. 1992)	S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-530(a)
South Dakota	State v. One Blue Pontiac Firebird, 737 N.W.2d 271 (S.D. 2007)
Tennessee	Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-452(b)(4)	Helms v. Tennessee Dept. of Safety, 987 S.W.2d 545, 548 (Tenn. 1999)
Utah	Utah Code Ann. § 24-4-106
Virginia	Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-386.10(A)
Washington	State v. Clark, 68 Wash. App. 592; 844 P.2d 1029, 1037 (Wash. App. 1993), affirmed 124 Wash.2d 90; 875 P.2d 613

In the state system, the right to a jury trial varies among the states. See Table 7-1, pages 141-143. Several states specifically grant a statutory right to a jury trial, see Fla. Stat. Ann. § 932.704(3); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 513.612; R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28-5.04.2(j); Utah Code Ann. § 24-4-106; Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-386.10A, and a few hold that the right to a jury trial is guaranteed under the state constitution. See People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, 37 Cal.2d 283, 300; 231 P.2d 832 (1951); Idaho Dep't of Law Enforcement Ex Rel. Cade v. Real Property Located in Minidoka County, 126 Idaho 422; 885 P.2d 381, 385 (Idaho 1994); State v. One Blue Pontiac, 2007 S.D. 63; 737 N.W.2d 271, 277 (S.D. 2007). However, a claimant may impliedly waive that right by failing to assert it. People v. $17,522.08 U.S. Currency, 142 Cal. App. 4th 1076, 1084 (2006); Brown v. State, 721 A.2d 1263, 1266 (Del. Supr. 1998).

Other states opt for a trial by court. See Ga. Code Ann. § 16-13-49(o)(5); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:2612.G; Mont. Code Ann. § 44-12-203. Even in those states that provide for a jury trial, it is not uncommon for the parties to waive it and stipulate to a bench trial. See People v. $497,590 U.S. Currency, 58 Cal. App. 4th 145, 150 (1997); Murrow v. Osceola County, 679 So.2d 883, 884 (Fla. App. 1996); City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 164 Wash. App. 236; 262 P.3d 1239, 1243 (Wash. App. 2011).

C. Criminal Conviction

Under the federal system, there is no requirement of a criminal conviction for a civil forfeiture action. The Palmyra, 25 U.S. 1, 15 (1827); von Hofe v. United States, 492 F.3d 175, 190 (2d Cir. 2007). Acquittal on the underlying criminal action, United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 366 (1984); One Lot of Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232 (1972), or subsequent reversal of the criminal conviction on appeal has no effect on the civil forfeiture. United States v. One "Piper" Aztec "F" Deluxe Model, 321 F.3d 355, 360 (3d. Cir. 2003); United States v. Real Property (Parcel 03179-005R), 287 F. Supp. 2d 45, 62 (D.D.C. 2003).

A criminal conviction is not required in most state civil forfeiture actions. In re Three Pieces of Property Located in Monticello, 81 Ark. App. 235; 100 S.W.3d 76, 79 (2003); Ga. Code Ann. § 16-13-49(v); People v. $52,204.00 U.S. Currency, 252 Ill. App. 3d 778; 623 N.E.2d 959, 961 (Ill. App. 1993); Katner v. State, 655 N.E.2d 345, 348 (Ind. 1995); Osborne v. Com., 839 S.W.2d 281, 283 (Ky. 1992); State v. 2002 Chevrolet Trail Blazer, 104 So.3d 394, 396 (La. 2012); Bozman v. Office of Finance of Baltimore County, 52 Md. App. 1; 445 A.2d 1073, 1077 (Md. App. 1982); In re Forfeiture of $53.00, 178 Mich. App. 480; 444 N.W.2d 182, 189 (Mich. App. 1989); Jackson v. State ex rel. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, 591 So.2d 820, 822 (Miss. 1991); State v. One 1994 Ford Thunderbird, 349 N.J. Super. 352; 793 A.2d 792, 803...