The following excerpt is from United States v. Baisden, CASE No. 1:06-cv-01368-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal. 2012):
The Sixth Amendment is meant to assure fairness in the adversary criminal process, and a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when the government initiates adversarial proceedings against him. United States v. Danielson, 325 F.3d 1054, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003). Here the injunctive relief sought is expressly civil in nature, meant to prevent a recurrence of specified conduct that substantially interferes with enforcement of internal revenue laws;1 it is remedial insofar as designed to protect the public and inherently civil in nature. (26 U.S.C. 7408(b)(2)). It seeks civil injunctive relief that is not inherently criminal in nature. See U.S. v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 39 Whalers Cove Drive, Babylon N.Y., 954 F.2d 29, 35 (2d Cir. 1992) (relief that can not fairly be attributed to remedial purposes "but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes" must be classified a punitive and then may be inherently criminal upon consideration of the proceedings inherent nature, identified through statutory language, structure and intent). "The Sixth Amendment relates to a prosecution of an accused person which is technically criminal in nature." U.S. v. Zucker, 161 U.S. 475, 481 (1896).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.