Amusement Sales Inc. v. State

The contingency fee arrangements for the special assistant district attorneys "SADAs" appointed to represent the state in civil forfeiture actions violated Georgia public policy, given that those types of arrangements caused the SADAs to have a personal financial stake in the proceedings' outcome.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this civil in rem forfeiture action arising out of allegations of illegal commercial gambling at a convenience store, the jury found in favor of the State of Georgia, resulting in the forfeiture of eight electronic game machines and a portion of the money found in those machines to the State. The trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict, and Amusement Sales, Inc., the owner of the machines, now appeals. In several enumerations of error, Amusement Sales contends that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the State failed to demonstrate that illegal commercial gambling had occurred, and because it had no actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged gambling. Amusement Sales further contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to disqualify the special assistant district attorneys “SADAs” appointed to prosecute the action on a contingency fee basis. Lastly, Amusement Sales contends that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury on the “innocent party” defense.

As discussed below, we reject Amusement Sales’s contention that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the State’s forfeiture claim. However, we conclude that contingency fee arrangements for SADAs appointed to represent the State in civil forfeiture actions violate Georgia public policy, given that those types of arrangements cause the SADAs to have a personal financial stake in the outcome of the proceedings. Consequently, we agree with Amusement Sales that its motion to disqualify should have been granted, and, as a result, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. In the interest of judicial economy, we also address the trial court’s jury charge on the “innocent party” defense and conclude that a different charge should be given on retrial.

Amusement Sales Inc. v. State

The contingency fee arrangements for the special assistant district attorneys "SADAs" appointed to represent the state in civil forfeiture actions violated Georgia public policy, given that those types of arrangements caused the SADAs to have a personal financial stake in the proceedings' outcome.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report