Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. $1,010.00 IN AMERICAN CURRENCY
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided September 6, 2006No. 23878Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partZinter, Justice
[¶ 51.] I concur in the Court’s analysis finding no statutory or Sixth Amendment basis for court-appointed counsel. However, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the Court’s opinion concluding that the Due Process Clause requires the appointment of counsel in the discovery phase of a civil forfeiture case.
[¶ 52.] The basis for the Court’s opinion, as well as its conclusion that the *103State’s overwhelming case authority is in-apposite, is the Court’s observation that the civil forfeiture was initiated before a criminal action was commenced. From this, the Court assumes that the civil…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Michigan v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, Calvin L. Robinson, Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.