Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,607
- 910
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed divided over a Miami woman’s argument that the government’s freeze on her assets after she was indicted for fraud prevented her from hiring a criminal defense lawyer.
The woman, home health care provider Sila Luis, contends the asset seizure violated her Sixth Amendment guarantee of a fair trial. The case is different from precedent, which allows money associated with crimes to be seized before trial, because portions of Luis’ frozen assets were personal property unrelated to the alleged fraud.
Some justices weren’t so sure.
“I just don’t understand that if you can freeze the assets despite the Sixth Amendment when they’re tainted, why it’s not the same rule when they’re untainted,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. told Luis’ attorney.
Other justices, though, voiced skepticism about the government’s unfettered ability to seize assets.
“The principle is that the government, without proving that he’s guilty of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt, can take all his money. Oh, because he might be fined,” Justice Stephen Breyer said. “I’ve never heard of such a principle, frankly.”
Read more here: Supreme Court Medicare fraud case raises questions over seized assets
I bet you wore that jewelry while you were stealing that money. It most definitely was an accessory (wink wink) to the crime.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed divided over a Miami woman’s argument that the government’s freeze on her assets after she was indicted for fraud prevented her from hiring a criminal defense lawyer.
The woman, home health care provider Sila Luis, contends the asset seizure violated her Sixth Amendment guarantee of a fair trial. The case is different from precedent, which allows money associated with crimes to be seized before trial, because portions of Luis’ frozen assets were personal property unrelated to the alleged fraud.
Some justices weren’t so sure.
“I just don’t understand that if you can freeze the assets despite the Sixth Amendment when they’re tainted, why it’s not the same rule when they’re untainted,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. told Luis’ attorney.
Other justices, though, voiced skepticism about the government’s unfettered ability to seize assets.
“The principle is that the government, without proving that he’s guilty of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt, can take all his money. Oh, because he might be fined,” Justice Stephen Breyer said. “I’ve never heard of such a principle, frankly.”
Read more here: Supreme Court Medicare fraud case raises questions over seized assets
I bet you wore that jewelry while you were stealing that money. It most definitely was an accessory (wink wink) to the crime.
