3 ms·

The burden is actually still on the government, but it's a lower burden than criminal cases.

• higherpurpose 12y ago
  What burden? The burden is on the owner, because he has all his assets being seized, making it much harder to defend himself now. That should never happen - certainly not in a "innocent until proven guilty" system (if that's still the case).
  • dpieri 12y ago
    Also you usually aren't given a court-appointed lawyer unless you are also facing other criminal charges.
  • rhino369 12y ago
    Burden of proof. What the hell else could someone mean when talking about a legal dispute?
    • jMyles 12y ago
      I think rhino369's point is that, whatever procedural arrangement might characterize the discourse, the actual burden of proof is on the owner - if they take action and prove their case, they get their possessions back. Until that time, the possessions are in the custody of the state. Furthermore, I don't think it's true (at least not per the article) that a civil forfeiture proceeding puts a burden of proof on the state - it seems to be that the owner has an opportunity to petition for appeal, which if not taken, amounts to a forfeit by default.