UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LORENE CHITTENDEN
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Gregory, Jan. 31, 2017,
Sixth Amendment- Pre-trial partial seizure of assets did not deprive the defendant of her right to choose counsel where there was no evidence that she was not able to obtain the representation she desired.
Vacated and remanded by USSC – remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Honeycutt v. United States, 581 U. S. ___ (2017). Summary here.

Facts: Chittenden was charged with conspiracy to participate in a mortgage fraud scheme and the government seized all of her assets except for a $40,000 payment to her law firm. She was subsequently convicted and the court entered judgment against her for over $1.5 million. When $1 million of the judgment was beyond the reach of government to seize, the court ordered an equivalent amount of substitute property be forfeited.

Conspiracy- A criminal conspiracy is an agreement of two or more people to commit an unlawful act. Once the conspiracy is proven, the government must only demonstrate a “slight connection” between the defendant and the conspiracy to convict.

Bank Fraud- 18 USC 1344(b) allows conviction where a false statement (such as a mortgage loan application) induced a bank to part with its money. This is the case even where the application is not made directly to the bank.

Forfeiture- A court’s failure to enter forfeiture orders until after sentencing does not deprive it of jurisdiction to do so

Forfeiture- Where the government showed that $1 million of the amount to be forfeited was beyond their reach, the court could order forfeiture of “substitute property” up to that amount.