- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Even if innocent, gov can take your ability to defend yourself
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:27 pm
Another incredibly bad decision by SCOTUS.
What is the point of innocent until proven guilty if they can strip your financial ability to defend yourself?
Kaley v. U.S.
What is the point of innocent until proven guilty if they can strip your financial ability to defend yourself?
quote:
Justice for Kelli and Brian Kaley, the Supreme Court held Tuesday, is of the Alice in Wonderland variety: First comes the punishment—the seizure of all their assets—then the trial, and the crime last of all. “But suppose they never committed the crime?” Alice asks. “It doesn’t matter,” comes the court’s answer, “because a grand jury said so.”
quote:
With charges looming, the Kaleys sought an estimate from their lawyers of how much mounting a defense would cost. The answer: $500,000. (That figure may seem high, but sadly the government agreed it was reasonable.) The Kaleys took out a home equity loan and used the $500,000 to purchase a certificate of deposit, which they planned to spend on lawyers.
The Kaleys have tried only to keep the assets they want to use to pay for a lawyer.
Then came the grand jury indictment and with it a nasty surprise: an order freezing essentially all their assets, including the CD that was meant to pay their legal bills. The only assets exempt from the order—Kelli’s retirement account and their children’s college funds—weren’t enough to cover the $500,000 estimate. And if the Kaleys liquidated those funds, they’d have owed $183,500 in tax penalties. The bottom line: They could no longer pay for their lawyer of choice even though, as the government agreed, that’s what the Sixth Amendment right to counsel protects.
Kaley v. U.S.
This post was edited on 2/26/14 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:29 pm to TrueTiger
Couldn't they still get appointed council?
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:40 pm to TrueTiger
that is a really bad decision IMO
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:27 pm to TrueTiger
A fricking 6-3 decision at that, with Breyer, Sotomayor and... Roberts as dissenters.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:46 pm to TrueTiger
Civil Forfeiture is a huge racket.
you have no rights because the civil case is actually against the property. So good luck.
This case is bad because it keeps power in a grand jury, which is basically the DA's puppet. Somebody once said a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.
you have no rights because the civil case is actually against the property. So good luck.
This case is bad because it keeps power in a grand jury, which is basically the DA's puppet. Somebody once said a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:53 pm to TrueTiger
I'm a little surprised and encouraged that everyone here seems to be against this.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 4:49 pm to TrueTiger
"We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us!"
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News