Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Transcript posted from the Kaley argument this morning

Here is the link.  And Justice Scalia got some laughter right from the start:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear argument next this morning in Case 12-464, Kaley vs. United States.
Mr. Srebnick?
ORAL ARGUMENT OF HOWARD SREBNICK ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
MR. SREBNICK: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
When the government restrains private property, the owner of that property has the right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. For a criminal defendant who's facing a criminal trial, whose property has been restrained, that time is now, before the criminal trial, so that he or she can use those assets, that property, to retain and exercise counsel of choice.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, I -- you know, I -- I find it hard to think that -- that the right of property is any more sacrosanct than the -- the right to freedom of the person. And we allow a grand jury indictment without -- without a separate mini-trial to justify the arrest and -- and holding of -- of the individual. And if he -- if he doesn't have bail, he's permanently in
jail until the trial is over. And we allow all of that just on the basis of a grand jury indictment. And you're telling us it's okay for that -- maybe you think it's not okay for that.
But I think you're saying it's okay for that, but it's not okay for distraining his property. I -- I find it hard to -- to think that it's okay for the one and not okay for the other.
MR. SREBNICK: Justice Scalia, it's not okay for either.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Ah, okay. This is a bigger case than I thought.
(Laughter.)
MR. SREBNICK: The right to be released on bail, that is, the right not to be detained all the way until trial, under this Court's precedent in United States v. Salerno, the Court provided procedural safeguards to ensure that before someone is held all the way until trial, they would have a hearing, a hearing which would include a right to challenge the weight of the evidence and other factors.
We ask for something no different. Indeed, the indictment itself can justify the detention of the body and the detention of the asset until such time --

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

From the AP

"The best thing Howard Srebnick had going for him at the Supreme Court on Wednesday was that he was trying to persuade nine very good lawyers in black robes about the importance of being able to hire a good lawyer."

Ouchie.

Read more: http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp?id=1202623870048&Miami_Lawyer_Wants_Indicted_Couples_Assets_Freed_So_They_Can_Pay_Attorneys#ixzz2hyYWl6ef

Anonymous said...

I'm missing something if this quote is meant to show anything other than the fact that Mr. Srebnick's argument is dead in the water.

Anonymous said...

I read the transcript and thought Srebnick did an outstanding job. Never would have believed that he had never argued before the S.Ct. And, I thought Dreeben was a little off his game.

Anonymous said...

eh