The case is
Luis v. United States, issued today. Here's the intro by Justice Breyer:
A federal statute provides that a court may freeze before trial certain assets belonging to a criminal defendant accused of violations of federal health care or banking laws. See 18 U. S. C. §1345. Those assets include: (1) property “obtained as a result of ” the crime, (2) property“traceable” to the crime, and (3) other “property of equivalent value.” §1345(a)(2). In this case, the Government has obtained a court order that freezes assets belonging to the third category of property, namely, property that is untainted by the crime, and that belongs fully to the defendant. That order, the defendant says, prevents her from paying her lawyer. She claims that insofar as it does so, it violates her Sixth Amendment “right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for [her] defence.” We agree.
And here's a picture of Howard arguing the case, from SCOTUSblog:
3 comments:
Strange split on this one, although Alito has never done anything to give a criminal defendant a break against the government and Kagan isn't much better.
Great work, as expected, from this team. Time to roll back the government's penchant for seizing assets. Like using a neutron bomb to kill mosquitos.
All about the money.
Post a Comment