This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A federal statute provides that a court may freeze before trial certain assets belonging to a defendant accused of violations of federal health care or banking laws. Those assets include (1) property “obtained as a result of” the crime, (2) property “traceable” to the crime, and (3), other “property of equivalent value.” A federal grand jury charged D, with paying kickbacks, conspiring to commit fraud, and engaging in other crimes all related to health care. P claimed that D had fraudulently obtained close to $45 million, almost all of which she had already spent. Only $2 million remained in D's possession for payment of restitution and other criminal penalties. The District Court ultimately issued an order prohibiting D from “dissipating, or otherwise disposing of assets, real or personal up to the equivalent value of the proceeds of the Federal health care fraud ($45 million).” This court order will prevent D from using her own untainted funds, i.e., funds not connected with the crime, to hire counsel to defend her in her criminal case. The District Court recognized that the order might prevent D from obtaining counsel of her choice, it held “that there is no Sixth Amendment right to use untainted, substitute assets to hire counsel.” The Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.