briefs, both the government and Robinson proceed with the assumption that Robinson has a constitutional right to a jury trial on certain forfeiture issues — -an assumption we are not convinced is correct. RICO forfeiture is an in personam criminal forfeiture and a form of monetary punishment. Alexander v. United States, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993). See also United States v. Horak, 833 F.2d 1235, 1243 (7th Cir.1987); United States v. Ginsburg, 773 F.2d 798, 800-01 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1011, 106 S.Ct. 1186, 89 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986). “The Sixth Amendment never has been thought to guarantee a right to a jury determination” on the appropriate punishment for the offender. Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 459, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 3161, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984) (<HOLDING>). This analysis suggests, and we believe, that
holding the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding death qualification of jury prior to guilt phase of bifurcated capital trial did not violate defendants sixth amendment right to impartial jury representative of fair crosssection of the community holding that the defendants sixth amendment right to a jury did not include having a jury decide whether or not he should receive a capital sentence holding that if a jury is to be provided the defendant at capital sentencing regardless of whether the sixth amendment requires it the jury must stand impartial and indifferent to the extent commanded by the sixth amendment