A couple is indicted. They want to hire the best available (and expensive) attorneys to defend themselves, but prosecutors want to freeze all financial assets that they believe were acquired through profits from the crime. Pick a side.
Innocent until proven guilty. They should be able to use the money until it's rightfully proven to be illegally obtained.
Know the law, innocent until proven guilty. If that money is dirty, the couple will have to pay it back regardless.
everyone is innocent until proven guilty
Innocent until proven guilty. This is just another governmental overreach in action.
More money shouldn't mean a greater chance at innocence. Freeze their funds and give them a public attorney.
Agree with jhug. Innocent until proven guilty.
I believe it is still innocent until proven guilty or, did I get that backwards?
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.
innocent until Provence guilty
right to an attorney.
Despite the fact that I feel that the prosecutors are correct, being innocent and proven guilty would prevent the freeze from occurring
innocent until proven guilty
Innocent until proven guilty.
Hold attorney's fees in an account.
When verdict comes down you know who gets the $$$.
Innocent until proven guilty, they are innocent now so they should not be able to freeze assets
Innocent until proven guilty otherwise prosecutor has unfair advantage.
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.
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...
You get all the $ back and can pay your lawyers. If found guilty as much $ as possible can be returned to the victim.
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.
Do you know the difference between seize and freeze?
Unless the prosecutors can prove to a judge that they money came from criminal activity, then they have to be innocent until proven guilty.
Whichever us legal in there state
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.
That would suck, and you are that it is not fair. But the judicial system would not be the one being unfair, the criminal is. If we want to cherish the idea of innocent until proven guilty, we have to take the risks that go with it.
If we start going "half way" we will loose one of the most valuable rights and beliefs that truly protects our freedoms as a whole.
Sometimes life is simply unfair. If life was 100% fair then we wouldn't be having a trial in the first place.
we wont start going half way. The way things already work is the prosecutor presents his evidence to the judge that the money was obtained illegaly. The defense has it's say in the matter. The judge then makes a decision on whether or not to freeze part or all of the money. If frozen it is
usually transfered to a neutral account where both parties can see that it is there still. The prosecuter doesn't just get to say freeze the accounts he has to show enough evidence for the presiding judge to deem it necessary.
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.
Innocent until proven guilty
If the funds can be proven to be illicit, by all means freeze them.
Let them get public defenders, they have law degrees.
They haven't proven it yet
"BELIVE", did anyone else hear that.
innocent until proven guilty...
That answers it for me...
innocent until proven guilty... nuf said
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.
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.
He's still a citizen, still innocent until proven guilty.
Sounds like a pretty strong case for the baby-mama.
Or maybe he's a trust fund baby. Maybe he's Justin Beiber's best bud. Never assume you know the whole story.
attorney. its all just allegations until that judge or jury says otherwise. the government just stealing from the
dealers anyways. idc about drug dealers, the government created them its their problem we have to pay for it.
Money can buy you out of almost anything. To deny a person that is like not having a fair trial
Innocent until proven guilty, we don't usually take that seriously but we should.
I second this comment
I may not like it in this case, but it is our legal system..
Innocent till proven guilty!
it's their money until they're proven guilty
Any one here know what indicted means? Anyone? Didn't think so.
Means the grand jury approved prosecution. Not that you are guilty, simply that you are accused. I have been on a grand jury.
Now that we have that cleared up, do we know the difference between freezing assets and confiscating assets?
Yes, what is the point you wish to make?
That this has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty and that the level of thinking on SOH is pretty low.
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.
Innocent until proven guilty.
"freezing" assets can be done before proven guilt. I vote with the prosecutors. They can still get legal council.
yes, freezing assets. another way the government bullies people. and if they get a shitty enough lawyer we
get to keep their assets also. win win for the gov.
Right to an attorney.
Innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and a conviction is given by a jury of one's peers.
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.
I considered this, but then I realized it gives too much power to prosecutors. What's to stop one from accusing someone of obtaining ALL his/her wealth through fraud? Then that person would have no funds to hire an attorney...
Too much power for the prosecutor, hmmm. A prosecutor must provide every aspect of his case to the defense. The defense does not. A prosecutor must convince 12 people beyond a doubt, the defense only needs to put 1 shred of doubt into 1 juror.
Yes yes I see your point. But I meant before the case even starts...let's say I'm a prosecutor who has a personal vendetta against someone. I also happen to know that the public defenders in my district are of the lowest quality... (continued)
Now I can claim that the person acquired his wealth illegally, forcing that person to go with the public defender. My false charges would easily be disproven by a competent defense lawyer, but I've manipulated it so that I'm up against the worst.
How about this compromise...for the grand jury hearing, the accused may use the funds to hire any attorney. But once indicted, the assets are frozen?
Now that I think about it, I suppose that's the original question...maybe I should change my answer. Didn't realize they've already been indicted.
Lots of good thoughts there. Upon seizure notification, the defendant needs only file to get the money/assets back. If he/she can show that the money was lawfully made, he/she gets it back. Pay stubs, bank records etc... Rarely able to prove though.
The accused is not normally present for the grand jury trial.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty!
It's called presumption of innocence... But it's not always fair.
If thy haven't been convicted then their assets shouldn't be frozen.
You should check the most liked before commenting.
Ironic, usually I'm the jerk saying that to someone else. Karma, I guess.
Eh, we all slip up.
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
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!!!!
Or someone like a Bernie Madoff.
Innocent until proven guilty. ( in most cases)