United States Second Circuit

The district court's order denying defendant's motion for a Monsanto hearing in his civil action (to prevent forfeiture of monies allegedly needed to fund his defense in a companion criminal case) is affirmed, where: 1) a defendant seeking a Monsanto or Monsanto-like hearing must demonstrate, beyond the bare recitation of the claim, that he or she has insufficient alternative assets to fund counsel of choice; and 2) here, the district court gave defendant ample opportunity to demonstrate that he had insufficient unrestrained assets to fund his defense with counsel of choice in his parallel criminal case, and he failed to so demonstrate.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/19/2013
• Published 06/19/2013

Judges

• WALKER

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel