Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#51

Post by roel_v »

Laaw wrote: post #48

Can't you just pay your defense attorney after the trial, guilty or not, whenever your assets are unfrozen? Assets frozen during trial that aren't linked to any criminal activity can't be permanently confiscated, so your defense attorney can just settle up your bill at the end of the trial, when the assets are unfrozen. Maybe that's not how it works now, but if this happens, then defense firms will have to do their b…

What lawyer will take on such a case, when it's unsure if you'll ever get paid, and if you do, it's years after the actual work is done? The first thing you do after you've hired a lawyer is pay his advance. No small firm can shoulder having to front cases that can drag on for years. It's not like you can tell your staff 'yeah we'll pay you in a few years'. And when the client is found guilty, the prosecutor will confiscate much of it. Good luck getting paid then.

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#52

Post by venomsnake »

Couldn't this be hacked by "law trouble" insurance. You get policy of up to X, in case you have your assets frozen and need legal council.

The current situation is strange. I can see why the Supreme Court would not want to open another can of worms. The problem comes from government being able to freeze all assets without guilt. Everything else is band aid on gangrene.

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#54

Post by roel_v »

rdtsc wrote: post #33

> Their argument dealt only with the Sixth Amendment — that while the government can seize untainted assets before trial, it must allow a defendant access to enough of his untainted assets to pay for his own defense. However, in this case it seems to me the defendant is guilty of defrauding the govt. to the tune of $40M. The possible outcome of the trial would be forcing them to pay back + penalties perhaps. Had this…

"EDIT: The problem is of course with the word assets. Are we talking about physical assets? Probalby not."

We probably are, otherwise after defrauding Medicare the first thing you should do is buy houses to 'park' your money.

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#55

Post by nullc »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #12

Maybe the public defender system may benefit, because when even wealthy or middle-class defendants can't pay for their lawyers, more lawyers are forced to either become public defenders or work on similar arguments, making financial means of defendants less of a factor in choosing their clients.

Are you making an assumption that these seized assets are not still counted against the accused in their access to the public defender system?

(I don't know-- but I think it is probably not safe to assume.)

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#56

Post by austenallred »

hliyan wrote: post #49
Laaw wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's most likely because you only hear about the extraordinary. The ordinary cases are just that, ordinary, and justice gets served with little fuss.

You're probably right. Plus I wasn't exactly fair in comparing a population of 300 million to one of 20 million. But where I come from 'going by the book' usually results in the guilty going free, not the innocent getting screwed. IANAL, but I wonder whether this is due to some difference between US law and Roman-Dutch/British law?

Yes, that's right. What you hear about are the extreme edge cases of society - the places where things fall through the cracks. As a whole the US Justice system is incredibly effective.

That being said, in a population of 300 million edge cases start to add up, and they are significant problems we should figure out how to fix.

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#57

Post by nullc »

Natsu wrote: post #17

The Supreme Court only answers the questions posed to them, not the merits of the underlying case, so the article's surprise that they're not addressing anything else is a strange to hear from a lawyer. It's also surprising to hear this as a "blow" to the Sixth Amendment, as the justices seem to believe they've rejected exactly this logic before in Monsanto. [1] One good thing is that the article hlepfully linked to…

In Alito's case there is at least an argument that the stolen assets were equal to or greater than the amount to be frozen.

But I thought in Kaley the frozen assets were some large multiple of any number claimed to be stolen, and that this practice of seizing everything was common.

Did this kind of distinction come up in the oral argument?

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#59

Post by cookiecaper »

agarden wrote: post #31
Natsu wrote: post #17

The Supreme Court only answers the questions posed to them, not the merits of the underlying case, so the article's surprise that they're not addressing anything else is a strange to hear from a lawyer. It's also surprising to hear this as a "blow" to the Sixth Amendment, as the justices seem to believe they've rejected exactly this logic before in Monsanto. [1] One good thing is that the article hlepfully linked to…

It strikes me that the problem with Justice Alito's analogy is that it presumes guilt. One could retell the story this way: two brothers each received $5000 from a rich uncle on the same day, and also made $5000 selling old vinyl records that turned out to be highly collectible. Then they go and spend $5000 partying. The government comes along and accuses them of attaining the second $5000 through illicit means and f…

If you're on trial, there's some significant chance that you're guilty. That's not the same as presuming you're guilty, but it means that you should probably not be allowed to use questionable assets, lest it turns out that you are guilty and the person the crime is perpetrated against is due restitution. I believe there should be some basic limitations on that power, but it makes sense for it to exist in some form. It seems that in this case, the argument is that even if a defendant's assets are frozen, the Court should be required to unfreeze the portion necessary to pay for defense.

There are several negative consequences that arise out of being prosecuted for a crime. I don't think we can say that just because there are some constraints placed on defendants, they've been presumed guilty. If they were presumed guilty, they'd be immediately sentenced and forced to retroactively disprove the claims post-facto.

Re: The Supreme Court could soon deliver a blow to the Sixth Amendment

#60

Post by fraserharris »

austenallred wrote: post #56
hliyan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably right. Plus I wasn't exactly fair in comparing a population of 300 million to one of 20 million. But where I come from 'going by the book' usually results in the guilty going free, not the innocent getting screwed. IANAL, but I wonder whether this is due to some difference between US law and Roman-Dutch/British law?

Yes, that's right. What you hear about are the extreme edge cases of society - the places where things fall through the cracks. As a whole the US Justice system is incredibly effective. That being said, in a population of 300 million edge cases start to add up, and they are significant problems we should figure out how to fix.

The function of the Supreme Court is to decide edge cases. Anything they hear is either a question of overlapping laws and/or an area without significant precedents.
Post reply on HN