Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, November 8, 1995                   TAG: 9511080065
SECTION: A-11 NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE:    EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

JUSTICES BROADEN PROSECUTOR POWER

Critics said the 8-1 decision in a Wyoming case could lead to plea-bargain abuses by prosecutors or rich criminals.

The justices also ruled that criminals who plead guilty to drug-related crimes in federal courts do not have to be told they are waiving a separate right to a jury trial for challenging government seizure of their assets.

The ruling marked a departure from recent high court rulings that, in various ways, had reined in the government's authority to seize assets from criminal activities.

``I'm shocked,'' said David B. Smith, a forfeiture expert who had urged the court on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to rule the other way. ``This is the first forfeiture case we've lost, after five straight wins.''

Smith said the decision ``encourages government overreaching by inducing some defendants to forfeit property not subject to forfeiture in exchange for leniency.''

Tuesday's ruling upheld the government's seizure of Joseph Libretti's assets after he pleaded guilty in Wyoming three years ago to participating in a ``continuing criminal enterprise.''

Prosecutors said Libretti operated a cocaine and marijuana distribution ring in Wyoming and Colorado from 1984-92.

His federal trial was 4 days old when Libretti decided to plead guilty. In return, prosecutors agreed to drop some charges against him and to recommend the minimum sentence - a 20-year prison term.

He could have faced 50 years in prison and a $2 million fine.

Libretti later challenged the scope of the government's seizure of his assets - worth more than $400,000.

Government agents seized real estate in Star Valley, Wyo., two condominiums, two automobiles, a mobile home, a diamond ring, guns, $8,000 in cash, bank accounts and some cashier's and traveler's checks.

Libretti argued that the trial judge had not established a proper ``factual basis'' for connecting the assets to the continuing criminal enterprise, and therefore should not have accepted the plea bargain in which Libretti agreed to surrender all his assets.

He also contended that he should have been told by the judge who accepted his guilty plea that he also was waiving his right to a jury trial over the forfeiture of his assets.