forfeiture doctrine in Florida

1989In re Forfeiture of Approximately Forty-eight Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($48,900.00) in U.S. Currency, 432 So.2d 1382, 1384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); In re Forfeiture of U.S. Currency in the Amount of Five Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($5,300.00), 429 So.2d 800, 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

1986Id. at 803 (Emphasis added).

2014The absence of a forfeiture rule covering this sort of conduct would create an intolerable incentive for defendants to bribe, intimidate, or even kill witnesses against them.” Id. at 365 .

2014Reviewing the doctrine of “forfeiture by wrongdoing,” which at common law permitted the introduction of statements of a witness who was “detained” or “kept away” by the “means or procurement” of the defendant, the Supreme Court explained that the forfeiture exception “applied only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.” Id. -6- at 359.

2025Ownership, however, is an issue to be determined in the forfeiture proceeding’s second stage when appellant would have to show standing as a “claimant.” See § 932.701(2)(h), Fla. Stat. (2015) (“‘Claimant’ means any party who has proprietary interest in property subject to forfeiture and has standing to challenge such forfeiture, including owners, registered owners, bona fide lienholders, and titleholders.”); Baruch, 718 So. 2d at 846 (emphasis added) (“[The] showing of standing required of a ‘person entitled to notice’ is less stringent than that required of a ‘claimant’ at a forfeiture hearin

2014Evid. 804(b)(6). -4- Amendment violation.3 No state court has found a Sixth Amendment violation when evaluating an evidentiary rule similar to 90.804(2)(f).4 3See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 382-83 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013) (noting Rule 804(b)(6) adopted the well-established common law hearsay exception); United States v. Baskerville, 448 F. App'x 243, 249 (3d Cir. 2011); Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding Giles stated a new rule requiring proof of intent, but the forfeiture doctrine has long been established and codified in R

2014Evid. 804(b)(6). -4- Amendment violation.3 No state court has found a Sixth Amendment violation when evaluating an evidentiary rule similar to 90.804(2)(f).4 3See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 382-83 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013) (noting Rule 804(b)(6) adopted the well-established common law hearsay exception); United States v. Baskerville, 448 F. App'x 243, 249 (3d Cir. 2011); Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding Giles stated a new rule requiring proof of intent, but the forfeiture doctrine has long been established and codified in R

2014Evid. 804(b)(6). -4- Amendment violation.3 No state court has found a Sixth Amendment violation when evaluating an evidentiary rule similar to 90.804(2)(f).4 3See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 382-83 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013) (noting Rule 804(b)(6) adopted the well-established common law hearsay exception); United States v. Baskerville, 448 F. App'x 243, 249 (3d Cir. 2011); Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding Giles stated a new rule requiring proof of intent, but the forfeiture doctrine has long been established and codified in R

2014Giles, 554 U.S. at 357-68 ; see also Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006) (describing Rule 804(b)(6) as a rule “which codifies the forfeiture doctrine”).

2014Evid. 804(b)(6). -4- Amendment violation.3 No state court has found a Sixth Amendment violation when evaluating an evidentiary rule similar to 90.804(2)(f).4 3See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 382-83 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013) (noting Rule 804(b)(6) adopted the well-established common law hearsay exception); United States v. Baskerville, 448 F. App'x 243, 249 (3d Cir. 2011); Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding Giles stated a new rule requiring proof of intent, but the forfeiture doctrine has long been established and codified in R

2014Evid. 804(b)(6). -4- Amendment violation.3 No state court has found a Sixth Amendment violation when evaluating an evidentiary rule similar to 90.804(2)(f).4 3See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 382-83 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013) (noting Rule 804(b)(6) adopted the well-established common law hearsay exception); United States v. Baskerville, 448 F. App'x 243, 249 (3d Cir. 2011); Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding Giles stated a new rule requiring proof of intent, but the forfeiture doctrine has long been established and codified in R

2014Evid. 804(b)(6). -4- Amendment violation.3 No state court has found a Sixth Amendment violation when evaluating an evidentiary rule similar to 90.804(2)(f).4 3See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 382-83 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013) (noting Rule 804(b)(6) adopted the well-established common law hearsay exception); United States v. Baskerville, 448 F. App'x 243, 249 (3d Cir. 2011); Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding Giles stated a new rule requiring proof of intent, but the forfeiture doctrine has long been established and codified in R

2014Evid. 804(b)(6). -4- Amendment violation.3 No state court has found a Sixth Amendment violation when evaluating an evidentiary rule similar to 90.804(2)(f).4 3See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 382-83 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013) (noting Rule 804(b)(6) adopted the well-established common law hearsay exception); United States v. Baskerville, 448 F. App'x 243, 249 (3d Cir. 2011); Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding Giles stated a new rule requiring proof of intent, but the forfeiture doctrine has long been established and codified in R

2014Cir. 2007); United States v. Montague, 421 F.3d 1099, 1102 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 15-16 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. Scott, 284 F.3d 758, 762 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding it “well-established” that any Confrontation Clause rights are forfeited when a defendant wrongfully procures the unavailability of a witness). 4Forty-one states have adopted the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule.

2014Evid. 804(b)(6). -4- Amendment violation.3 No state court has found a Sixth Amendment violation when evaluating an evidentiary rule similar to 90.804(2)(f).4 3See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 382-83 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013) (noting Rule 804(b)(6) adopted the well-established common law hearsay exception); United States v. Baskerville, 448 F. App'x 243, 249 (3d Cir. 2011); Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding Giles stated a new rule requiring proof of intent, but the forfeiture doctrine has long been established and codified in R

2014Cir. 2007); United States v. Montague, 421 F.3d 1099, 1102 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 15-16 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. Scott, 284 F.3d 758, 762 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding it “well-established” that any Confrontation Clause rights are forfeited when a defendant wrongfully procures the unavailability of a witness). 4Forty-one states have adopted the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule.

2014Cir. 2007); United States v. Montague, 421 F.3d 1099, 1102 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 15-16 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. Scott, 284 F.3d 758, 762 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding it “well-established” that any Confrontation Clause rights are forfeited when a defendant wrongfully procures the unavailability of a witness). 4Forty-one states have adopted the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule.

2014Evid. 804(b)(6). -4- Amendment violation.3 No state court has found a Sixth Amendment violation when evaluating an evidentiary rule similar to 90.804(2)(f).4 3See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 382-83 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013) (noting Rule 804(b)(6) adopted the well-established common law hearsay exception); United States v. Baskerville, 448 F. App'x 243, 249 (3d Cir. 2011); Ponce v. Felker, 606 F.3d 596, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding Giles stated a new rule requiring proof of intent, but the forfeiture doctrine has long been established and codified in R

2013Alternatively it says the case was effectively settled, not voluntarily dismissed, and that remand would be appropriate to determine the rightful owner of the currency. 2 While it is generally true that a claimant prevails when a forfeiture claim is dismissed, Pondella Hall for Hire, Inc. v. Lamar, 866 So.2d 719, 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), the statute states that release of seized property shall be “to the person entitled to possession of the property as determined by the court.” § 982.704, Fla. Stat. Merely being a claimant does not necessarily equate to being the “person entitled to possession

2009Evid. 804(b)(6); People v. Stechly, 225 Ill.2d 246 , 312 Ill.Dec. 268 , 870 N.E.2d 333, 349-50 (2007) (requiring specific intent to forfeit Confrontation Clause objection); People v. Geraci, 85 N.Y.2d 359 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 469 , 649 N.E.2d 817, 822-23 (1995) (same); State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 840 N.E.2d 151 , 170-72 (2006) (discussing that the forfeiture exception to hearsay rule requires some motive to prevent witness from testifying); see generally Timothy M.

2009Evid. 804(b)(6); People v. Stechly, 225 Ill.2d 246 , 312 Ill.Dec. 268 , 870 N.E.2d 333, 349-50 (2007) (requiring specific intent to forfeit Confrontation Clause objection); People v. Geraci, 85 N.Y.2d 359 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 469 , 649 N.E.2d 817, 822-23 (1995) (same); State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 840 N.E.2d 151 , 170-72 (2006) (discussing that the forfeiture exception to hearsay rule requires some motive to prevent witness from testifying); see generally Timothy M.

2009Evid. 804(b)(6); People v. Stechly, 225 Ill.2d 246 , 312 Ill.Dec. 268 , 870 N.E.2d 333, 349-50 (2007) (requiring specific intent to forfeit Confrontation Clause objection); People v. Geraci, 85 N.Y.2d 359 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 469 , 649 N.E.2d 817, 822-23 (1995) (same); State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 840 N.E.2d 151 , 170-72 (2006) (discussing that the forfeiture exception to hearsay rule requires some motive to prevent witness from testifying); see generally Timothy M.

2009Evid. 804(b)(6); People v. Stechly, 225 Ill.2d 246 , 312 Ill.Dec. 268 , 870 N.E.2d 333, 349-50 (2007) (requiring specific intent to forfeit Confrontation Clause objection); People v. Geraci, 85 N.Y.2d 359 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 469 , 649 N.E.2d 817, 822-23 (1995) (same); State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 840 N.E.2d 151 , 170-72 (2006) (discussing that the forfeiture exception to hearsay rule requires some motive to prevent witness from testifying); see generally Timothy M.

2002This court has said that where there are conflicting affidavits relating to the ownership of the seized property, "and the affidavits filed in the proceeding cannot be reconciled, we believe that a better procedure is to hold an evidentiary hearing." Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). [1] A distinction must be drawn between the ownership of personal property (standing), and the question whether the personal property represents the proceeds of illegal activity (the merits of the forfeiture claim).

1999NOTES [1] It should be noted that Golon subsequently filed a motion to suppress in the criminal proceeding against him, and the trial court granted the motion to suppress. [2] In re Forfeiture of $62,200 in U.S. Currency, 531 So.2d 352, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), on which Killen relied, is likewise distinguishable because, there, the claimant's answer, filed prior to the forfeiture hearing, failed to allege a Fourth Amendment violation.