- 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
8
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:28 pm to TrueTiger
Damn
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:29 pm to TrueTiger
Couldn't they still get appointed council?
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:33 pm to kingbob
quote:
Couldn't they still get appointed council?
Yes, but if you are innocent and can afford your choice of lawyer, why should you get stuck with the free public defender?
(not a shot at public defenders, there are excellent ones)
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:38 pm to TrueTiger
Whoa. This is brutal.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:40 pm to TrueTiger
that is a really bad decision IMO
Posted on 2/26/14 at 9:50 pm to Draconian Sanctions
if you like your attorney you can keep your attorney - PERIOD!!!!
hmmm - nvrmd
hmmm - nvrmd
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:09 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
that is a really bad decision
its a rare moment when we agree DS
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:22 pm to TrueTiger
So in essence, a court can freeze the money you would use in your own defense and force you to use a court appointed attorney- who is now swamped with a million other cases. Fair jurisprudence, right? Fantastic.
This should scare the daylights out of everyone.
Prosecutors are going to love this.
This should scare the daylights out of everyone.
Prosecutors are going to love this.
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 3:30 pm to Rickety Cricket
quote:
The reason the Kaleys are in this mess has its origins in the 1970s, when Congress started passing a series of forfeiture laws as part of the war on drugs.
Why am I not surprised that this is at the root of it?
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 3:48 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
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.
I'm not too familiar with how grand juries function. Are these people elected or appointed? Are they ex-lawyers, ex-judges, etc?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:50 pm to Tigah in the ATL
The decision is bad, but you can blame Congress for enacting the laws that allow this.
The dissenting opinion by Roberts was pretty great. It specifically points out that another person was charged as part of this alleged conspiracy, and because the government could put no one on the stand to say that the property was stolen, the person was acquitted in less than three hours.
The dissenting opinion by Roberts was pretty great. It specifically points out that another person was charged as part of this alleged conspiracy, and because the government could put no one on the stand to say that the property was stolen, the person was acquitted in less than three hours.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:51 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Are these people elected or appointed? Are they ex-lawyers, ex-judges, etc?
They are ordinary citizens from all walks of life.
You get a summons for it just like regular jury duty.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:52 pm to Tigah in the ATL
My uncle went through this recently.
The Feds charged him with 16 counts.
He said he wasn't guilty and hired an attorney.
The Feds then came back and said that if he didn't plead, they would charge him with one count at a time, and the legal bills would then bankrupt him.
He plead guilty to one count, and now they are trying to take his house. They already got the 401k, that my uncle then paid over 20 grand in tax penalties.
I wish liberals could see the terrible things that the govt does.
The Feds charged him with 16 counts.
He said he wasn't guilty and hired an attorney.
The Feds then came back and said that if he didn't plead, they would charge him with one count at a time, and the legal bills would then bankrupt him.
He plead guilty to one count, and now they are trying to take his house. They already got the 401k, that my uncle then paid over 20 grand in tax penalties.
I wish liberals could see the terrible things that the govt does.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:52 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I'm not too familiar with how grand juries function. Are these people elected or appointed? Are they ex-lawyers, ex-judges, etc?
It's basically jury duty on crack. Any registered voter can be called to serve.
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 3:54 pm to CherryGarciaMan
quote:
He plead guilty to one count, and now they are trying to take his house. They already got the 401k, that my uncle then paid over 20 grand in tax penalties.
Wait, they seized his 401k, then charged him the fee for withdrawing it early?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:56 pm to elprez00
quote:
everyone here seems to be against this.
I view it fairly simply.
Shouldn't the government at least have to wait until you are guilty before it can punish you?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News