In the 1988 case Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's assets obtained through illegal activities could be seized by the government before trial and thus were not available to pay for legal defense fees. The law firm Caplin & Drysdale had represented a convicted drug dealer and claimed their client’s right to counsel was violated when his assets were confiscated under federal forfeiture laws, leaving him unable to pay his attorneys' fees. However, in a 6-3 decision led by Justice Blackmun, the court held that there is no constitutional right for defendants to use forfeited or tainted funds for their defense. This ruling upheld federal statutes allowing pretrial seizure of alleged crime-related properties as it did not infringe on Sixth Amendment rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, Justice Blackmun argued that a defendant's right to counsel of choice is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment and should not be compromised by forfeiture laws. He contended that allowing the government to seize assets before trial effectively denies defendants their chosen legal representation if those assets were intended to pay for such services. This could potentially lead to inadequate defense due to financial constraints imposed on defendants by these seizures. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential conflicts of interest between attorneys and clients when dealing with forfeitable fees as it may affect attorney’s loyalty towards their client’s best interests. Thus, according to Justice Blackmun's dissenting view, pretrial asset seizure infringes upon a defendant's constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment.