|
I didn't find that one particularly surprising. Sharing a residence with someone includes the risk that they might admit someone undesirable to you while you're not there. The fact that one party wasn't there because he had been arrested (provided the arrest was supported by probable cause and not pretextual) seems irrelevant. The only thing I find odd about this is that the police didn't just get a warrant since they had arrested an armed robber and had a co-resident of the premises saying he had been inside.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I didn't find that one particularly surprising. Sharing a residence with someone includes the risk that they might admit someone undesirable to you while you're not there. The fact that one party wasn't there because he had been arrested (provided the arrest was supported by probable cause and not pretextual) seems irrelevant. The only thing I find odd about this is that the police didn't just get a warrant since they had arrested an armed robber and had a co-resident of the premises saying he had been inside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
And now the 5th circuit joins the marriage fight, which Texas of all places having their gay marriage ban struck down by a judge. I've not had time to read the whole ruling yet, but it is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/209429696/Texas-Gay-Marriage-Ruling. From the brief, it sounds like he went the same route as Oklahoma and the rest of the recent rulings (No rational relation to a government interest etc.). It is also on stay pending appeal, which the AG has said he would do. With all these cases filtering up the system, how does SCOTUS handle it all, assuming they all get cert? Do they wait until they are through appeal and bundle them into one decision (ala DOMA + Prop 8), or would they have to rule on the first, and they (provided their are similar enough) just point to that ruling for all the others? GhostBoy fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:With all these cases filtering up the system, how does SCOTUS handle it all, assuming they all get cert? Do they wait until they are through appeal and bundle them into one decision (ala DOMA + Prop 8), or would they have to rule on the first, and they (provided their are similar enough) just point to that ruling for all the others? Either way. Either SCOTUS consolidates all the cases pending before them, or they take one and then "Grant cert, Vacate judgment below, Remand for consideration in light of [whichever case they took]." The GVR would only happen for cases pending before SCOTUS at the time of their first ruling; every case then pending in the circuit or district courts would just adjust in light of the new law. Realistically, though, as soon as SCOTUS grants cert on one of the gay marriage cases, every other case would be stayed pending a ruling on [whichever case they took].
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:And now the 5th circuit joins the marriage fight, which Texas of all places having their gay marriage ban struck down by a judge. I've not had time to read the whole ruling yet, but it is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/209429696/Texas-Gay-Marriage-Ruling. From the brief, it sounds like he went the same route as Oklahoma and the rest of the recent rulings (No rational relation to a government interest etc.). It is also on stay pending appeal, which the AG has said he would do. What's with all these auto-stayed rulings? Is to prevent couples from ending up in legal limbo if the ruling is struck down en route to a higher court? Is it some kind of legal tradition or decorum for controversial rulings? I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:What's with all these auto-stayed rulings? Is to prevent couples from ending up in legal limbo if the ruling is struck down en route to a higher court? Is it some kind of legal tradition or decorum for controversial rulings? I'm genuinely curious. Partially to avoid the limbo issue, but I wouldn't call it auto-stayed - generally what happens is that the judge announces the decision and then the counsel for the losing party asks for a stay pending appeal. It is largely discretionary but if the ruling a) changes the status quo ante lawsuit and/or b) is highly unlikely to resolve before appeal (I.e., a settlement, not really a factor in impact cases like this) I would say it's unusual for a judge not to stay the ruling. I wouldn't call it a tradition, but just sort of the way it works - like how opposing parties will almost always consent to extensions in deadlines to answer the complaint. If the trial court denies a stay, then they can also seek one from the appellate court (as has happened in the RAFA stuff with the nuns, with Sotomayor staying the ruling below) so there are two bites at the apple. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
No cert on Wolfe v. Clarke is a tragedy: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/another-chance-for-the-justices-to-say-no-to-prosecutorial-misconduct/283731/ And here's a mind-numbingly bad result, Kaley v. US: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...isrc=burger_bar
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:What's with all these auto-stayed rulings? Is to prevent couples from ending up in legal limbo if the ruling is struck down en route to a higher court? Is it some kind of legal tradition or decorum for controversial rulings? I'm genuinely curious. In the marriage cases we also have Utah, where the decision wasn't stayed, allowing around 1000 couples to get married, and then the Supreme Court issued a stay anyway. I'm guessing the judges are just preempting the process, since if they stayed one of them, they likely will stay them all, and it saves, as you say, some couples ending in limbo, and speeds the whole process along faster. The defendants can go directly about their likely appeal of the case, rather than jumping through a hoop or two to get they stay made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K-8FJ114kU
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
quote:Don't taze me, bro! That guy's face at 1:58 is pretty priceless though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Personally I've never understood why SCOTUS isn't covered by CSPAN, they're public servants doing a job for the public and we should get to watch while they're on the clock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Hasters posted:Personally I've never understood why SCOTUS isn't covered by CSPAN, they're public servants doing a job for the public and we should get to watch while they're on the clock. They don't want it and you can't make them do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Justices Ginsburg says she doesn't want cameras covering oral arguments because she doesn't want people to get the impression that oral arguments are the deciding factor of the cases. Which backs my theory that they are largely for grandstanding (IANAL)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Do any other major state or federal courts have video feeds? The only ones I can recall seeing are the television entertainment courts and various local court clips on the news. And not to say that you're incorrect in your assumptions or attributions Rygar201, but the rationale for lack of video during oral arguments seems flimsy considering there is audio recording going on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:And here's a mind-numbingly bad result, Kaley v. US: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...isrc=burger_bar The Kaley v US decision is IMHO the worst opinion they have handed down in a long time (and there have been some bad ones). And I'm very surprised its not all over the news like Citizens United was. It seems the justices are incredibly naive; with the mindset of "The government would NEVER do something to subvert the intent of the law, right? RIGHT?" Combined with how common it has become for pretrial forfeiture over any crime, I fully expect prosecutors to get into a permanent pattern of seize assets -> court assigns overworked public defender -> prosecutor offers "generous" plea deal -> public defender pushes accused into taking deal. Although I suppose those of us who want equal justice for all should be happy. Now the rich and poor are screwed over equally. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Do any other major state or federal courts have video feeds? The only ones I can recall seeing are the television entertainment courts and various local court clips on the news. Several, including some experiments in federal trial courts with live Webcasts. http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2011/cameras-roll-new-federal-court-experiment has some good info on both state and federal programs. Honestly, given that both transcripts and audio recordings are easily accessible, I don't see the appeal of video. I've been to arguments in person and, while it's interesting to go, I actually wound up closing my eyes so I could listen better. Video wouldn't really enhance understanding beyond what's already available. That said, it isn't something I think is really much of an issue either way and if people really want it, there's no great reason against it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
I think the actual usefulness of video isn't for the audience, but for the attorneys - it's basically game film, especially since in the moment you might be trying to respond to one Justice and the video will allow you to see how other Justices react both to the question and your answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:The Kaley v US decision is IMHO the worst opinion they have handed down in a long time (and there have been some bad ones). And I'm very surprised its not all over the news like Citizens United was. Actually, it seems like they're mostly concerned with legal minutae that the Slate article, being heavy on alarmism and light on citing the judges' actual legal reasoning, neglected to mention. The actual ruling appears to hang on three basic points: A) Past Supreme Court decisions have ruled asset forfeiture legal as long as there's probable cause (which is found by a grand jury), even if it renders the defendant unable to afford a lawyer B) Asset forfeiture isn't the only consequence of grand jury rulings. Allowing asset forfeiture to be challenged separately could lead to a situation where there's probable cause to hold someone in pretrial detention but not to seize their assets, and it's a little ridiculous to have a higher standard for freezing assets than on imprisonment C) Allowing the judge to overrule grand jury findings on forfeiture could lead to the case being tried by a judge who had already ruled that the grand jury's indictment of probable cause was wrong, which is a little ridiculous http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/mobile/document/Kaley_v_United_States_No_12464_2014_BL_49837_US_Feb_25_2014_Court/1 Choice quotes: quote:The Kaleys' alternative rule would have strange and destructive consequences. Allowing a judge to decide anew what the grand jury has already determined could result in two inconsistent findings governing different aspects of one criminal proceeding, with the same judge who found probable cause lacking presiding over a trial premised on its existence. That legal dissonance could not but undermine the criminal justice system's integrity, especially the grand jury's constitutional role. quote:And indeed, the alternative rule the Kaleys seek would have strange and destructive consequences. The Kaleys here demand a do-over, except with [*7] a different referee. They wish a judge to decide anew the exact question the grand jury has already answered — whether there is probable cause to think the Kaleys committed the crimes charged. But suppose the judge performed that task and came to the opposite conclusion. Two inconsistent findings would then govern different aspects of one criminal proceeding: Probable cause would exist to bring the Kaleys to trial (and, if otherwise appropriate, hold them in prison), but not to restrain their property. And assuming the prosecutor continued to press the charges,[fn8] the same judge who found probable cause lacking would preside over a trial premised on its presence. That legal dissonance, if sustainable at all, could not but undermine the criminal justice system's integrity quote:To begin the Mathews analysis, the Government has a substantial interest in freezing potentially forfeitable assets without an evidentiary hearing about the probable cause underlying criminal charges. At the least, such an adversarial proceeding — think of it as a pre-trial mini-trial (or maybe a pre-trial not-so-mini-trial) — could consume significant prosecutorial time and resources. The hearing presumably would rehearse the case's merits, including the Government's theory and supporting evidence. And the Government also might have to litigate a range of ancillary questions relating to the conduct of the hearing itself (for example, could the Kaleys subpoena witnesses or exclude certain evidence?). quote:This Court has repeatedly declined to require the use of adversarial procedures to make probable cause determinations. Probable cause, we have often told litigants, is not a high bar: It requires only the "kind of `fair probability' on which `reasonable and prudent [people,] not legal technicians, act.'" Florida v. Harris, 568 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 5) (quotingIllinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 231, 238 (1983)); see Gerstein, 420 U. S., at 121 (contrasting probable cause to reasonable-doubt and preponderance standards). That is why a grand jury's finding of probable cause to think that a person committed [*11] a crime "can be [made] reliably without an adversary hearing," id., at 120; it is and "has always been thought sufficient to hear only the prosecutor's side," United States v. Williams, 504 U. S. 36, 51 (1992). So, for example, we have held the "confrontation and cross-examination" of witnesses unnecessary in a grand jury proceeding. Gerstein, 420 U. S., at 121-122. Similarly, we have declined to require the presentation of exculpatory evidence, see Williams, 504 U. S., at 51, and we have allowed the introduction of hearsay alone, see Costello, 350 U. S., at 362-364. On each occasion, we relied on the same reasoning, stemming from our recognition that probable cause served only a gateway function: Given the relatively undemanding "nature of the determination," the value of requiring any additional "formalities and safeguards" would "[i]n most cases . . . be too slight."Gerstein, 420 U. S., at 121-122.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I think the actual usefulness of video isn't for the audience, but for the attorneys - it's basically game film, especially since in the moment you might be trying to respond to one Justice and the video will allow you to see how other Justices react both to the question and your answer. That's a good point, although I think you get much of the same utility out of SCI moots, and those insights you can carry forward into the case, while after-the-fact insights from video would not generally help you improve as most would be case specific.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That's a good point, although I think you get much of the same utility out of SCI moots, and those insights you can carry forward into the case, while after-the-fact insights from video would not generally help you improve as most would be case specific. Fair enough, but I think there are a sufficient number of frequent fliers who end up handling cases with overlapping substantive issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Fair enough, but I think there are a sufficient number of frequent fliers who end up handling cases with overlapping substantive issues. Yeah, that's definitely true as well. I wasn't saying I disagreed that there was value! Just unclear to me how much value there would be - it is definitely the one circumstance I've heard anyone propose where there's even any realistic value beyond simple interest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually, it seems like they're mostly concerned with legal minutae that the Slate article, being heavy on alarmism and light on citing the judges' actual legal reasoning, neglected to mention. The actual ruling appears to hang on three basic points: The alternative ruling does not require that asset forfeiture is run as a separate trial (although it still probably should). They could have simply required that there is an exception on those assets for legal defense. If we can have attorney-client privilege for communication, we can have a similar exemption for paying for your attorney. But again, the opinion hinges on the idea farce that prosecutors will always use forfeiture carefully, when the Kayley case very clearly indicated the prosecutors were willing to use money laundering laws to seize as many assets as possible; beyond the money involved in the original crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually, it seems like they're mostly concerned with legal minutae that the Slate article, being heavy on alarmism and light on citing the judges' actual legal reasoning, neglected to mention. The actual ruling appears to hang on three basic points: The problem is that the entire doctrine of asset forfeiture is medieval nonsense with as little inherent logic as charging a tree with murder because its branches fell and killed someone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The problem is that the entire doctrine of asset forfeiture is medieval nonsense with as little inherent logic as charging a tree with murder because its branches fell and killed someone. The supreme court says thats a legislative decision not a judicial one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The problem is that the entire doctrine of asset forfeiture is medieval nonsense with as little inherent logic as charging a tree with murder because its branches fell and killed someone. Eldragon posted:The alternative ruling does not require that asset forfeiture is run as a separate trial (although it still probably should). They could have simply required that there is an exception on those assets for legal defense. If we can have attorney-client privilege for communication, we can have a similar exemption for paying for your attorney.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Do any other major state or federal courts have video feeds? The only ones I can recall seeing are the television entertainment courts and various local court clips on the news. Ohio Supreme Court has their oral arguments on the web. http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/Collection.aspx?collectionId=108262&action=clear
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
I'm neither a lawyer, nor do I have the time to research it. So I'll simply say, in the event that there is no precedent for using forfeited assets for legal defense, the justices should have erred on the side of the defendant's ability to provide themselves with legal council. Then it becomes a legislative decision to allow forfeiture, rather than the other way a round. hobbesmaster posted:The supreme court says thats a legislative decision not a judicial one. While scotus rightly prefers to congress to write laws, and not "legislate from the bench" as is so often used, it really works both ways. If the lower court's decision is upheld or reversed, its congress's job to change the law if they disagree with the court's decision. In either case, the court is in effect making law by merely providing an opinion on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:The alternative ruling does not require that asset forfeiture is run as a separate trial (although it still probably should). They could have simply required that there is an exception on those assets for legal defense. If we can have attorney-client privilege for communication, we can have a similar exemption for paying for your attorney. The precise nature of the challenge made such an exception unlikely and the potential for abuse irrelevant. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, Kaley wasn't challenging the asset forfeiture specifically, but rather the entire grand jury indictment. That goes way beyond just government abuse. To carve out an exemption for just asset forfeiture, the Supreme Court would need to be willing not only to make a broad ruling but also to overthrow Monsanto and more than twenty years of Court precedent based on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
The problem is that money has such a clear correlation to the outcome of the case, not that the government can seize assets allegedly involved in crimes. If the goal of courts is to discover truth and uphold justice than money should be entirely uncorrelated. The supreme court is going to have a hard time fixing that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:No cert on Wolfe v. Clarke is a tragedy: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/another-chance-for-the-justices-to-say-no-to-prosecutorial-misconduct/283731/ How tare these people not in prison? What they did is so insane they should be taking Wolfe's place on death row considering this doesn't even appear to be the first times these people have gotten in trouble for loving around and their violations are so blatant the face that they weren't frogmarched out of their offices and in to a cell speaks volumes about the excessive leeway people involved in our justice system get and that it's not just cops who can get away with murder. Even if the SCOTUS would hear this it'd almost certainly still end up 5-4 against Wolfe though, but perhaps with an amazing dissent from Sotomayor. Wasn't it Scalia that said evidence of innocence wasn't enough to free a man sentenced to die because a court found him guilty?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:The problem is that money has such a clear correlation to the outcome of the case, not that the government can seize assets allegedly involved in crimes. If the goal of courts is to discover truth and uphold justice than money should be entirely uncorrelated. The supreme court is going to have a hard time fixing that. Problem is, the Supreme Court directly addressed that issue in US v Monsanto, in which the Court ruled (5-4, of course) that the money needed to pay for a lawyer is not exempted from forfeiture according to the law as written by Congress, and Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v US, in which the same justices ruled (5-4 again!) that asset forfeiture which renders a defendant unable to pay for a lawyer does not violate one's constitutional right to choose their lawyer and also that the low burden of proof for forfeiture doesn't violate the right to due process - they even specifically addressed the question of prosecutorial misconduct (in a charmingly naive way, but that's the Supreme Court for you...). To come to any different conclusion, the Supreme Court would have to be prepared to overturn not one but two modern Supreme Court decisions which are recent enough that two currently-sitting justices heard the cases (Scalia and Kennedy, both of whom voted with the majority). Monsanto v US: quote:We conclude that there is no exemption from § 853's forfeiture or pretrial restraining order provisions for assets which a defendant wishes to use to retain an attorney. In enacting § 853, Congress decided to give force to the old adage that "[***526] crime does not pay." We find no evidence that Congress intended to modify that nostrum to read, "crime does not pay, except for attorney's fees." If, as respondent and supporting amici so vigorously assert, we are mistaken as to Congress' intent, that body can amend this statute to otherwise provide. But the statute, as presently written, cannot be read any other way. Caplin Drysdale Chartered v US: quote:This submission is untenable. [3] Whatever the full extent of the Sixth Amendment's protection of one's right to retain counsel of his choosing, that protection does not go beyond "the individual's right to [**542] spend his own money to obtain the advice and assistance of . . . counsel." Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U. S. 305, 370 (1985) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). A defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to spend another person's money for services rendered by an attorney, even if those funds are the only way that that defendant will be able to retain the attorney of his choice. [4] A robbery suspect, for example, has no Sixth Amendment right to use funds he has stolen from a bank to retain an attorney to defend him if he is apprehended. The money, though in his possession, is not rightfully his; the Government does not violate the Sixth Amendment if it seizes the robbery proceeds and refuses to permit the defendant to use them to pay for his defense. "[N]o lawyer, in any case, . . . has the right to . . . accept stolen property, or . . . ransom money, in payment of a fee. . . . The privilege to practice law is not a license to steal." Laska v. United States, 82 F. 2d 672, 677 (CA10 1936). Petitioner appears to concede as much, see Brief for Petitioner 40, n. 25, as respondent in Monsanto clearly does, see Brief for Respondent in No. 88-454, pp. 36-37. quote:Forfeiture provisions are powerful weapons in the war on crime; like any such weapons, their impact can be devastating when used unjustly. But due process claims alleging such abuses are cognizable only in specific cases of prosecutorial misconduct (and petitioner has made no such allegation here) or when directed to a rule that is inherently unconstitutional. "The fact that the . . . Act might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it . . . invalid," United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987). Petitioner's claim--that the power available to prosecutors under the statute could be abused--proves too much, for many tools available to prosecutors can be misused in a way that violates the rights of innocent persons. As the Court of Appeals put it, in rejecting this claim when advanced below: "Every criminal law carries with it the potential for abuse, but a potential for abuse does not require a finding of facial invalidity." 837 F. 2d, at 648 .
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:To come to any different conclusion, the Supreme Court would have to be prepared to overturn not one but two modern Supreme Court decisions which are recent enough that two currently-sitting justices heard the cases (Scalia and Kennedy, both of whom voted with the majority).
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:How tare these people not in prison? What they did is so insane they should be taking Wolfe's place on death row considering this doesn't even appear to be the first times these people have gotten in trouble for loving around and their violations are so blatant the face that they weren't frogmarched out of their offices and in to a cell speaks volumes about the excessive leeway people involved in our justice system get and that it's not just cops who can get away with murder. Somebody else said that, but Scalia's such an unspeakable piece of poo poo that nobody has any difficulty believing he said it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Even if the SCOTUS would hear this it'd almost certainly still end up 5-4 against Wolfe though, but perhaps with an amazing dissent from Sotomayor. Wasn't it Scalia that said evidence of innocence wasn't enough to free a man sentenced to die because a court found him guilty? quote:This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. I'll note here that factually Scalia is completely correct in that, at the time, the Supreme Court has never held that. Whether or not this is good policy is a separate issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:The argument for respecting stare decisis holds more weight the older the precedent gets, not the newer it is. Yes, but that wasn't a stare decisis argument, it was a "do you really think Kennedy and Scalia have changed their minds about this?" argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
quote:Cases involving particular abuses can be dealt with individually by the lower courts, when (and if) any such cases arise. I'm curious what the mechanism for such a challenge in the lower courts would be. Presumably it would happen after the inevitable plea since the defendant would no longer have resources to fund his own defense, thereby making any challenge to the forfeiture moot. Or if somehow he does end up acquitted the prosecutors have absolute immunity, no?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
twodot posted:You're going to need to elaborate on this, I can imagine several arguments you might be making, many of them would be based on conflating different things that have similar names. To start with you might raise an objection to Kagan's description of why forfeiture is good in this very case. If you look at the history of asset forfeiture decisions, the original modern asset forfeiture decisions from the Prohibition era took as their precedents a bunch of admiralty-law decisions from (I think?) the 1700's and 1800's that allowed legal proceedings against ships. The reasoning of those decisions was partly based on a sort of proto-corporate-liability doctrine for the ship, and partly based on various medieval common-law decisions based on the concept of deodand. quote:The English common law of deodands traces back to the 11th century and was applied, on and off, until Parliament finally abolished it in 1846.[2] Under this law, a chattel (i.e. some personal property, such as a horse or a hay stack) was considered a deodand whenever a coroner's jury decided that it had caused the death of a human being.[3] In theory, deodands were forfeit to the crown, which was supposed to sell the chattel and then apply the profits to some pious use.[4] (The term deodand derives from the Latin phrase "deo dandum" which means "to be given to God.") In reality, the juries who decided that a particular animal or object was a deodand also appraised its value and the owners were expected to pay a fine equal to the value of the deodand. If the owner could not pay the deodand, his township was held responsible.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deodand So there's a continuous legal line that can be traced from modern asset forfeiture law back to medieval idiots charging trees and horse-carts with murder because they fell over on someone. All these decisions share the same basic absurdities: 1) that it's conceptually valid to charge an inanimate object with a crime, and 2) the rights of the owner of that object then evaporate because you aren't charging the owner, you're charging the thing owned! It's a nonsensical legal fiction that, if it ever made sense, only did so in pre-modern Admiralty courts as a sort of working substitute for a corporate liability law that hadn't been developed yet, but that has survived into the modern era because it makes it easy for the police to confiscate poo poo. hobbesmaster posted:The supreme court says thats a legislative decision not a judicial one. Well, yes. I mean I realize that the courts aren't going to actually overturn this system. But until there's significant further legislative reform we're going to keep getting decisions like this, because there's no good alternative for the courts in the asset forfeiture arena -- there are too many clearly established judicial precedents by now. It's a case where the long-term interest of the police forces and judicial system in preserving a source of government revenue has systematically eroded defendant's property rights over time, and because our judicial system requires you to have a good deal of property in order to have much chance of protecting any other rights you might have, well, we get decisions like this. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:The argument for respecting stare decisis holds more weight the older the precedent gets, not the newer it is. Yeah, but considering that Kennedy and Scalia both voted with the majority in those cases, they're both going to be actively pushing those cases as a precedent to live by and arguing strongly against any attempt to overturn that precedent. KernelSlanders posted:I'm curious what the mechanism for such a challenge in the lower courts would be. Presumably it would happen after the inevitable plea since the defendant would no longer have resources to fund his own defense, thereby making any challenge to the forfeiture moot. Or if somehow he does end up acquitted the prosecutors have absolute immunity, no? I'd assume that when the case comes to trial, instead of filing a "hey, grand jury proceedings violate my Sixth Amendment rights, it needs to be adversarial" brief with whatever lawyer they ended up with after they found themselves unable to pay the half-million bucks needed for the star legal team they'd planned on, the defendant could file a "hey, these funds have nothing to do with the alleged conduct, the government's just milking us for cash to deny us our chosen lawyer" motion. at which point the trial court would have the option (but not an obligation) to review that claim and, if they agree, order the government to release the necessary amount of funds back to the defendant. The reason that didn't work for Kaley is that, as far as I can tell, Kaley never actually challenged the validity of the initial or expanded forfeitures. While the district court offered them a hearing to challenge the asset forfeiture specifically, Kaley never made any attempt to do so and instead insisted on challenging the entire grand jury indictment itself, and the court had absolutely no interest in that sort of ridiculousness. As is often the case with Supreme Court cases, the devil is in the details, and Kaley really hosed those details up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Somebody else said that, but Scalia's such an unspeakable piece of poo poo that nobody has any difficulty believing he said it. It's a paraphrase of something he actually did write in Herrera v. Collins: Nino posted:There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes, but that wasn't a stare decisis argument, it was a "do you really think Kennedy and Scalia have changed their minds about this?" argument. Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, but considering that Kennedy and Scalia both voted with the majority in those cases, they're both going to be actively pushing those cases as a precedent to live by and arguing strongly against any attempt to overturn that precedent. - "Hey, guys, I got more skin in the game because I was part of that particular majority, so now I really meant it that I think we should abide by the precedent!" - "Oh, well, although I would have otherwise overturned that precedent, let's fall in line!" Like, SCOTUS isn't the most acrimonious of appellate courts in the nation, but they don't exactly top the list in not wanting to offend their colleague's jurisprudential sensibilities. It appears that your argument is a sociological one about the behavior of 9 of the most important people in the U.S., and how much they don't want to hurt each other's professional feelings. But I'm not seeing that being a guiding light in how they decide to vote, especially when we know of several examples of them being frenemies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 17:42
|
|