4 ms·
Kaley v. United States[1] "Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not const
by remarkEon 12y ago
Kaley v. United States[1]
"Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged."
Kind of a weird 6-3 coalition too.
[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf
- sukilot 12y agoThat quote doesn't justify seizure. Certainly not permsne t seizure with no trial.
- Pyxl101 12y agoWhat about someone who has not been indicted? The man in the article was not indicted with a crime. It seems to me that any asset seizure should be at most tied to a fair trial. Once an asset seizure has taken place, the clocks starts ticking on "speedy trial" as if the defendant himself had been arrested. If the defendant isn't convicted within a reasonable time, the assets must be returned, with a burden on the government to show that the assets were the proceeds of a crime.