libvation South Carolina
07/03/13 8:43 pm
I think the key thing here is that they 'believe' they were acquired through crime. If they haven't been convicted, then there is no proof and they cannot rightfully freeze the financial assets of a couple that's innocent until proven guilty.
clibby
07/02/13 10:11 am
Innocent until proven guilty, they are innocent now so they should not be able to freeze assets
UnknownVarial3le Madness
07/02/13 5:50 am
Innocent until proven guilty. In the event they are found guilty, then the money would THEN be confiscated. The accused couple would then be forced to pay back the lawyer with whatever funds are left.
wabajaber1 Bible Belt
07/02/13 5:01 am
So according to everyone's logic here we also shouldn't hold accused criminals in detention while awaiting trial? Aaron Hernandez would love this thread. Freezing and confiscating are different, and no one pays lawyers up front. If found innocent...
MericaRules
07/02/13 4:23 am
Innocent until proven guilty. End of story. How can he seize an innocent persons assets? That would certainly have some backsides but that's the most key part of our justice system.
JohnnyBraska Nebraska
07/01/13 9:43 pm
Senario: You are 6 months from retirement. A con man takes your life savings. He is caught and taken to trial. Since he is innocent until proven guilty he blows your entire life savings on his own defense. He is convicted and sentenced to 10 yrs. Is that fair to the person who was conned.
itsbread Southern California
07/01/13 9:37 pm
Let them use the money in their account. If it is found to be gotten illegally, then they cover the defense AND the prosecutions' legal fees with all money left after the stolen money is returned.
mcdkm Houston
07/01/13 7:03 pm
They shouldn't be able to benefit from the fruits of a crime but there needs to be a hearing and the prosecutor needs to provide convincing evidence of where the funds came from.
Cluricaun
07/01/13 6:58 pm
Ok, let me dissent. 20 year old highschool dropout and his baby-mama, with no job, deal drugs and murder a rival drug dealer. No income OTHER than drug funds. Huge house, expensive cars, (did I mention NO job?). I say freeze the assests. Please comment.
wmfocker
07/01/13 5:39 pm
Innocent til proven guilty people, plain and simple. Shouldn't have right to freeze assets until convicted of the crime. No exception to their rights.
icpshootyz
07/01/13 4:57 pm
"freezing" assets can be done before proven guilt. I vote with the prosecutors. They can still get legal council.
SugarShaq
07/01/13 4:10 pm
Prosecutors didn't ask to freeze all of their assets, only those alleged to have been taken through crime. Bet if you were the person they stole it from your view would change.
Fiftysiete California
07/01/13 2:54 pm
If its that clear that they committed the crime it shouldn't matter to the DA who the other attorney is. Plus might as well have them not put more strain on a public defender if they don't need to
iceman1717
07/01/13 2:42 pm
A couple thoughts. First, asset seizure is a civil proceeding, not criminal. Thus the threshold is a mere preponderance, not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, a guy robs a bank and then uses the funds stolen for his defense... R U kidding!!!!
Comments: Add Comment