Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is what the defendants were arguing. However, they really weren't arguing for bank robbers, but rather this couple who's activities were of dubious illegality. The defendants seem to be arguing that an exception should be made for this case (and that seems to be what the disenting Justices were arguing as well). But the likely result would have been that bank robbers would be enabled to use the money in their safe to pay for lawyers.
Yes, reading further from the ruling.
A federal statute, 21 U. S. C. §853(e), authorizes a court to freeze an indicted defendant’s assets prior to trial if they would be subject to forfeiture upon conviction. In United States v. Monsanto, 491 U. S. 600, 615 (1989), we approved the constitutionality of such an order so long as it is “based on a finding of probable cause to believe that the property will ultimately be proved forfeitable.” And we held that standard to apply even when a defendant seeks to use the disputed property to pay for a lawyer.
In this case, two indicted defendants wishing to hire an attorney challenged a pre-trial restraint on their property. The trial court convened a hearing to consider the seizure's legality under Monsanto. The question presented is whether criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled at such a hearing to contest a grand jury's prior determination of probable cause to believe they committed the crimes charged. We hold they have no right to relitigate that finding.
Sometimes it's wise to not take up your position based upon one article. The couple in question had their case presented to the grand jury before their assets were frozen. No that doesn't mean you are guilty but the government had to prove that there was probable cause for conviction and that upon conviction these assets would be forfeited.
If the couple in question had owned a home for 20 years, the crime was recent and they had taken a loan out on the house to pay a lawyer, the money in question wouldn't be confiscated.
While this case might not be as clear as others the Supreme Court can't carve out individual exceptions to the laws. I guess upon more info no one actually has a problem with the courts not allowing money one is accused of stealing be used to pay for their lawyers. They had a chance to try and prove their assets were separate from the illegal activities they were accused of doing. If they could prove they held these assets before the time of any illegal activity they were accused of doing they would have been allowed to keep them.
They wanted to try the case before there was a trial. I'm not even sure how that was supposed to work.
"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to people. People are innocent until proven guilty. This isn't about the people; it is about the money. This article is just another case of people with corrupted, avaricious perspectives failing to apply basic reason, and thereby mistaking their money for themselves.
"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to people. People are innocent until proven guilty. This isn't about the people; it is about the money. This article is just another case of people with corrupted, avaricious perspectives failing to apply basic reason, and thereby mistaking their money for themselves.
Buu, I really dont think you understand what is going on here?
PS when in doubt error on the side of liberty above all else, you just cant stand the that other have more then others, deal with..
Buu, I really dont think you understand what is going on here?
PS when in doubt error on the side of liberty above all else, you just cant stand the that other have more then others, deal with..
I'll ask again.....let's put it this way. You have $10,000 stolen from your house. Evidence shows someone from next door stolen it. Police have enough evidence to get a warrant. They find your neighbor with 10k in his pockets. They present the case to a grand jury and your neighbor is allowed to present his side of the story about where the 10k came from. The judge finds probable cause that it is your money and the grand jury indicts.
You are OK with them using this 10k to pay their lawyer at their trial?
I've still not seen anyone argue why this was a bad ruling. The Supreme Court was not ruling on whether this couple was guilty or innocent, that isn't what the Supreme Court does. The Supreme Court sets precedent. They weren't ruling on this case per se.
They ruled that if prosecution can show in court that money or assets were likely illegally gained and would have to be forfeited if there was a conviction, they can't use those funds to pay a lawyer.
That is what the defendants were arguing. However, they really weren't arguing for bank robbers, but rather this couple who's activities were of dubious illegality. The defendants seem to be arguing that an exception should be made for this case (and that seems to be what the disenting Justices were arguing as well). But the likely result would have been that bank robbers would be enabled to use the money in their safe to pay for lawyers.
I have no issue with the holding of property pending judgment, but is the property returned if defendants are cleared?
I have no issue with the holding of property pending judgment, but is the property returned if defendants are cleared?
It would have to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
