- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 8,364
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Pretrial freeze of “untainted” assets violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice
Four years ago, Sila Luis was indicted on charges of Medicare fraud. The government alleged that she had obtained as much as $45 million illegally but had spent almost all of it, leaving her with approximately $2 million in assets. Hoping to ensure that Luis’s remaining assets would be available to pay fines and restitution if she were convicted, the government went to court. Relying on a federal statute that allows courts to freeze property equivalent in value to the proceeds of health-care crimes like those with which Luis has been charged, the government asked a federal trial court to issue a pretrial order to freeze all of Luis’s assets, including the “untainted” ones – that is, money not connected to her alleged crimes
(. . .)
Justice Stephen Breyer had the eight-member Court’s main opinion, which drew the support of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. For Breyer, it comes down to a balancing test. On the one hand, the Sixth Amendment right to hire the lawyer of your choice, while not unlimited, is a fundamental one, which would be undermined by allowing courts to freeze a defendant’s “untainted” assets. On the other hand, although the government’s interest in ensuring that a defendant’s assets are available to pay fines or restitution is certainly important, Breyer concludes, that interest is outweighed by the defendant’s constitutional right to his counsel of choice – particularly when the defendant may still have “tainted” assets – that is, assets that are the fruits of his crimes. Moreover, Breyer added, allowing the government to freeze “untainted” assets in a case like Luis’s “would have no obvious stopping place,” because Congress could enact new laws to allow similar asset freezes in cases involving other kinds of crimes.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the Breyer plurality . . .
Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented, in an opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito. . .
Justice Elena Kagan also dissented . . .
Luis’s case now goes back to the lower courts, where she will presumably be allowed to use her “untainted” funds to pay (within reason) her attorney’s fees.
A ruling issued on Wednesday in the Supreme Court is a good illustration in regards to the complexity of law and how it is to be interpreted by legal minds.
Complexity and length of the article means I can only post a little bit. I do recommend that those interested take the time to click thru and read
Luis v. United States
If there are any "untainted assets" they should be retained for use by the defendant in support of their own defense.
Unless and until someone is adjudged guilty, then it is right and proper for them to retain control over their untainted assets.
That one is tough. on one hand I agree , then on the other hand I think give them public defender and freeze the assets.
Why? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Seizing untainted assets is an unreasonable restraint, and prevents a person from obtaining the best counsel available. It also puts an unreasonable burden on their everyday lives. No money = no food on the table, rent for shelter, bills paid, house repossessed. How is that justice?
Why? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Seizing untainted assets is an unreasonable restraint, and prevents a person from obtaining the best counsel available. It also puts an unreasonable burden on their everyday lives. No money = no food on the table, rent for shelter, bills paid, house repossessed. How is that justice?
From Justice Kennedy's dissent:
"Assume a thief steals $1 million and then wins another $1 million in a lottery. After putting the sums in separate accounts, he or she spends $1 million. If the thief spends his or her lottery winnings, the Government can restrain the stolen funds in their entirety. The thief has no right to use those funds to pay for an attorney. Yet if the thief heeds today’s decision, he or she will spend the stolen money first; for if the thief is apprehended, the $1 million won in the lottery can be used for an attorney. This result is not required by the Constitution."
“The true winners today are sophisticated criminals who know how to make criminal proceeds look untainted. They do so every day.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-419_nmip.pdf
Sadly this ruling favors rights for criminals. Smart criminals can disguise tainted funds as untainted funds. This decision is setting a horrible precedent and only makes it easier for criminals to get off.
The words I emphasised would seem to indicate that you actually believe at least in part, the justification for the Court's ruling. In other words, the public defender system as presently formulated is incapable of providing adequate defence for the accused in criminal cases.From Justice Kennedy's dissent:
"Assume a thief steals $1 million and then wins another $1 million in a lottery. After putting the sums in separate accounts, he or she spends $1 million. If the thief spends his or her lottery winnings, the Government can restrain the stolen funds in their entirety. The thief has no right to use those funds to pay for an attorney. Yet if the thief heeds today’s decision, he or she will spend the stolen money first; for if the thief is apprehended, the $1 million won in the lottery can be used for an attorney. This result is not required by the Constitution."
“The true winners today are sophisticated criminals who know how to make criminal proceeds look untainted. They do so every day.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-419_nmip.pdf
Sadly this ruling favors rights for criminals. Smart criminals can disguise tainted funds as untainted funds. This decision is setting a horrible precedent and only makes it easier for criminals to get off.
The words I emphasised would seem to indicate that you actually believe at least in part, the justification for the Court's ruling. In other words, the public defender system as presently formulated is incapable of providing adequate defence for the accused in criminal cases.
Incredibly interesting splitting of the decision!
Strange bedfellows!
Breyer, Roberts, Bader Ginsburg, Thomas, and Sotomayor on one side…
…Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan on the other.
Where does that come from?
IMO it would be too difficult to distinguish between tainted funds and untainted funds. So what if someone steals $1 million dollars and uses that money on business investments and makes $10 million legally? Technically all that money is tainted.
The purpose of the sixth Amendment is not a right to counsel with tainted money. If the money is stolen, that money is technically not his/hers
If the government has a reasonable belief if you are going to try and hide your money before being forfeited, they should be able to freeze your assets.
From Justice Kennedy's dissent:
"Assume a thief steals $1 million and then wins another $1 million in a lottery. After putting the sums in separate accounts, he or she spends $1 million. If the thief spends his or her lottery winnings, the Government can restrain the stolen funds in their entirety. The thief has no right to use those funds to pay for an attorney. Yet if the thief heeds today’s decision, he or she will spend the stolen money first; for if the thief is apprehended, the $1 million won in the lottery can be used for an attorney. This result is not required by the Constitution."
“The true winners today are sophisticated criminals who know how to make criminal proceeds look untainted. They do so every day.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-419_nmip.pdf
Sadly this ruling favors rights for criminals. Smart criminals can disguise tainted funds as untainted funds. This decision is setting a horrible precedent and only makes it easier for criminals to get off.
Why are you avoiding the point I made? It had nothing to do with whether or not an accused person was able to hide their money.
You apparently think/believe that a person who must rely upon the public defender system, as it exists, is more likely to be convicted than a person who can afford a private attorney. In other words - if you got the cash, you have a much greater chance of escaping judgement than those who are poor. Reality says that this is true in America - you got money, you ain't goin' to jail.
That one is tough. on one hand I agree , then on the other hand I think give them public defender and freeze the assets.
IMO it would be too difficult to distinguish between tainted funds and untainted funds. So what if someone steals $1 million dollars and uses that money on business investments and makes $10 million legally? Technically all that money is tainted.
The purpose of the sixth Amendment is not a right to counsel with tainted money. If the money is stolen, that money is technically not his/hers
If the government has a reasonable belief if you are going to try and hide your money before being forfeited, they should be able to freeze your assets.
This type of ruling puts the handcuffs on our law enforcement instead of the criminals.
I am well aware of the concept of innocent until proven guilty however it seems some people in this thread believe until the verdict is reached we cannot do anything to stop a potential criminal taking from the innocent.
This type of ruling puts the handcuffs on our law enforcement instead of the criminals.
I am well aware of the concept of innocent until proven guilty however it seems some people in this thread believe until the verdict is reached we cannot do anything to stop a potential criminal taking from the innocent
From Justice Kennedy's dissent:
"Assume a thief steals $1 million and then wins another $1 million in a lottery. After putting the sums in separate accounts, he or she spends $1 million. If the thief spends his or her lottery winnings, the Government can restrain the stolen funds in their entirety. The thief has no right to use those funds to pay for an attorney. Yet if the thief heeds today’s decision, he or she will spend the stolen money first; for if the thief is apprehended, the $1 million won in the lottery can be used for an attorney. This result is not required by the Constitution."
“The true winners today are sophisticated criminals who know how to make criminal proceeds look untainted. They do so every day.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-419_nmip.pdf
Sadly this ruling favors rights for criminals. Smart criminals can disguise tainted funds as untainted funds. This decision is setting a horrible precedent and only makes it easier for criminals to get off.
This type of ruling puts the handcuffs on our law enforcement instead of the criminals.
I am well aware of the concept of innocent until proven guilty however it seems some people in this thread believe until the verdict is reached we cannot do anything to stop a potential criminal taking from the innocent.
This ruling does absolutely nothing to stop law enforcement from arresting criminals. I don't think you read the OP.
This stops the prosecution from crippling the defense by seizing assets after the criminals have been arrested but before trial, so as to force those who could afford multiple private attorneys to take the one public defender. (Amusingly enough, it is those prosecutors who are the loudest voices of protest when states consider raising the rates paid to public defenders. Wonder why that is).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?