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's exactly the logic behind this ruling. We don't need bank robbers using the funds they obtained during the robbery to sevure multimillion dollar defence teams, do we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
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?
Well, I've read stories that it wasn't returned. It's been awhile, so things may have changed.
I tried to find the outcome of this case and wasn't able to find it so I wasn't even sure if it's been completed. It's possible it was stayed until of the outcome of this ruling.
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?
But if the police don't find money, but the person is indicted on other evidence, is it okay to put a lien on his home? It's a tough call. The answer may lie in how and/or if the attorneys' fees are paid.
I tried to find the outcome of this case and wasn't able to find it so I wasn't even sure if it's been completed. It's possible it was stayed until of the outcome of this ruling.
Years ago, I remember a corrupt P.D. in Louisiana using this type of law to confiscate property from innocent people. The law allowed them to keep the property after the defendants were cleared. This is the problem I have with these laws.
But if the police don't find money, but the person is indicted on other evidence, is it okay to put a lien on his home? It's a tough call. The answer may lie in how and/or if the attorneys' fees are paid.
IMO it would depend. Have they owned the house for 20 years and the crime happened 6 months ago? I would say no.
Did the crime happen over the last 5 years and they bought the house 2 years ago? Then maybe.
If only we had someone...like say a congress and a senate...that would represent us, and could reign in these sorts of things....
It would be even better if we had a president who faithfully represented and supported all the people in accordance with the oath of office, not just those who were in lock-step agreement with him.
IMO it would depend. Have they owned the house for 20 years and the crime happened 6 months ago? I would say no.
Did the crime happen over the last 5 years and they bought the house 2 years ago? Then maybe.
Agreed. The root of the issue is the cost of legal representation. I think that's where the focus should be. Lawyers can already be required to provide service pro-bono. Perhaps something along those lines can be sought, pending outcome.
Agreed. The root of the issue is the cost of legal representation. I think that's where the focus should be. Lawyers can already be required to provide service pro-bono. Perhaps something along those lines can be sought, pending outcome.
In this case this is what the lady was faced with but she didn't want to accept the pro-bono attorney.
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?
But the defendant isn't present at the grand jury, neither is his attorney. The prosecution always wins the indictment, unless he doesn't want to. So it's not like some of the other findings of probably cause that are a result of both sides presenting their arguments.
The system should allow one to contest the confiscation of their assets, and not make them sit on the sidelines while the a one-sided process plays out without them participating.
But this is the congresses fault, not the court's. It's a poorly written law.
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.
