3 ms·

"and—under civil law—the burden of proof is on the defense to demonstrate their property is innocent." Really? I thought the burden of proof was on the prosecu

"and—under civil law—the burden of proof is on the defense to demonstrate their property is innocent." Really? I thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution side to demonstrate guilt.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
pmorici 14y ago
The burden of proof is different for civil law than it is for criminal law http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor222222 http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor222222 "Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt", is a criminal law thing. The situation in the article doesn't fall under criminal law since they aren't accusing the hotel owners of a crime.
- nirvana 14y ago
  It does fall under criminal law because they are stealing his hotel. Theft is a crime. Of course, whose going to prosecute the prosecutors?
DanBC 14y ago
In the UK for criminal trials you have "beyond reasonable doubt" - the prosecution have to prove guilt. But in civil cases it's "balance of probability".
- dthunt 14y ago
  I believe the phrasing is different in the States, but it's the same general principle. But there are ways to get that kind of low standard in criminal trials, as well. What's REALLY fun is when a case gives prosecutors the ability to throw in accusations they don't intend to prove to the usual standard just to inflate sentencing guidelines. Though, it looks like the Supreme Court is currently taking up a related issue (instance where someone was given additional time due to the judge's application of a 'accomplice brandished a weapon' allegation by the prosecution to raise the minimum sentence. So maybe this practice is on its last legs. (a man can dream).
- smsm42 14y ago
  It's worse than that, because in regular civil case, the burden of proof is lower, but still the plaintiff has to initiate the proceedings and bring proof. With civil forfeiture, pretty much all police needs is a suspicion, and it can be as much as "he has too much cash, it's suspicious" or "you lent a car to a person we suspected in a crime" - and the cash or the car is forfeited. And then you need to initiate proceedings and pay the lawyers - and if you fail to jump through all the hoops, they keep the property by default. It is nothing short of legal robbery.
Spooky23 14y ago
With asset forfeiture, in effect your property is arrested, and property does not have civil rights. One well known case in the early 90's was an old black gentlemen who owned a plant nursery, and was detained at an airport for the crime of being black and in possession of $30,000. I think the story was featured on 60 Minutes and the NY Times. The guy was the son of a sharecropper, was illiterate, did not use checks or credit cards. He had flown from his home to Texas every year with a bag of money to buy plants to ship north to sell after becoming too old to drive. He wasn't committing a crime, so he wasn't arrested -- but his money was kept as it was considered suspicious by the Federal authorities. It was a catch-22 situation, as litigating against the Feds will cost alot more than $30k.
- bravoyankee 14y ago
  And it's an easy win for prosecutors. Looks good on their résumé.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  'Flying while black'... disgusting.
  - pstuart 14y ago
    Just like 'driving while black', or 'walking down the sidewalk while black' -- equally disgusting. But hey, it doesn't affect me directly so why should I care? /s
- droithomme 14y ago
  They intentionally target the weak pretty often. Migrant workers were a favorite for years. These guys work in bad conditions in the US for 5-10 years or more, saving their money in a big wad of cash, then they'll go back to Guatemala, buy some land, pay for their kids to go to school, and so forth. Police know that they got the money working in chicken factories, construction and field work, and that they don't fight back, so when they find one of them driving south, they stop them and keep looking until they find their wad of cash, then steal it. Usually by the time the wad of cash gets back to be checked in, it is smaller, assuming it is checked in at all. These sort of shakedowns are common in the third world by corrupt police. Make no mistake, this is the same sort of police here. Didn't used to be like this. There has always been some corruption of course, but it wasn't the normal way that things are done.

"and—under civil law—the burden of proof is on the defense to demonstrate their property is innocent." Really? I thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution side to demonstrate guilt.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

pmorici 14y ago

The burden of proof is different for civil law than it is for criminal law http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor222222 http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor222222 "Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt", is a criminal law thing. The situation in the article doesn't fall under criminal law since they aren't accusing the hotel owners of a crime.

nirvana 14y ago
It does fall under criminal law because they are stealing his hotel. Theft is a crime. Of course, whose going to prosecute the prosecutors?

DanBC 14y ago

In the UK for criminal trials you have "beyond reasonable doubt" - the prosecution have to prove guilt. But in civil cases it's "balance of probability".

dthunt 14y ago
I believe the phrasing is different in the States, but it's the same general principle. But there are ways to get that kind of low standard in criminal trials, as well. What's REALLY fun is when a case gives prosecutors the ability to throw in accusations they don't intend to prove to the usual standard just to inflate sentencing guidelines. Though, it looks like the Supreme Court is currently taking up a related issue (instance where someone was given additional time due to the judge's application of a 'accomplice brandished a weapon' allegation by the prosecution to raise the minimum sentence. So maybe this practice is on its last legs. (a man can dream).
smsm42 14y ago
It's worse than that, because in regular civil case, the burden of proof is lower, but still the plaintiff has to initiate the proceedings and bring proof. With civil forfeiture, pretty much all police needs is a suspicion, and it can be as much as "he has too much cash, it's suspicious" or "you lent a car to a person we suspected in a crime" - and the cash or the car is forfeited. And then you need to initiate proceedings and pay the lawyers - and if you fail to jump through all the hoops, they keep the property by default. It is nothing short of legal robbery.

Spooky23 14y ago

With asset forfeiture, in effect your property is arrested, and property does not have civil rights. One well known case in the early 90's was an old black gentlemen who owned a plant nursery, and was detained at an airport for the crime of being black and in possession of $30,000. I think the story was featured on 60 Minutes and the NY Times. The guy was the son of a sharecropper, was illiterate, did not use checks or credit cards. He had flown from his home to Texas every year with a bag of money to buy plants to ship north to sell after becoming too old to drive. He wasn't committing a crime, so he wasn't arrested -- but his money was kept as it was considered suspicious by the Federal authorities. It was a catch-22 situation, as litigating against the Feds will cost alot more than $30k.

bravoyankee 14y ago
And it's an easy win for prosecutors. Looks good on their résumé.
jacquesm 14y ago
'Flying while black'... disgusting.
- pstuart 14y ago
  Just like 'driving while black', or 'walking down the sidewalk while black' -- equally disgusting. But hey, it doesn't affect me directly so why should I care? /s
droithomme 14y ago
They intentionally target the weak pretty often. Migrant workers were a favorite for years. These guys work in bad conditions in the US for 5-10 years or more, saving their money in a big wad of cash, then they'll go back to Guatemala, buy some land, pay for their kids to go to school, and so forth. Police know that they got the money working in chicken factories, construction and field work, and that they don't fight back, so when they find one of them driving south, they stop them and keep looking until they find their wad of cash, then steal it. Usually by the time the wad of cash gets back to be checked in, it is smaller, assuming it is checked in at all. These sort of shakedowns are common in the third world by corrupt police. Make no mistake, this is the same sort of police here. Didn't used to be like this. There has always been some corruption of course, but it wasn't the normal way that things are done.