Choice of Counsel and the Appearance of Equal Justice Under Law

Once a federal prosecutor obtains an indictment that seeks a forfeiture, a judge must permit the prosecutor to freeze all the potentially forfeitable assets that would be unavailable at the time of conviction. Obviously, funds used for the defense would fit into that category. Equally obvious is the...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Wesley M. Oliver (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2015
En:Año: 2015
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866594966
003 DE-627
005 20250116054900.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231020s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866594966 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866594966 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Wesley M. Oliver  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Choice of Counsel and the Appearance of Equal Justice Under Law 
264 1 |c 2015 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Once a federal prosecutor obtains an indictment that seeks a forfeiture, a judge must permit the prosecutor to freeze all the potentially forfeitable assets that would be unavailable at the time of conviction. Obviously, funds used for the defense would fit into that category. Equally obvious is the tension between the government’s interest in assets that may be forfeitable and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to choice of counsel. A number of lower courts therefore had permitted defendants to seek release of the assets needed for a defense by challenging the grand jury’s determination that probable cause existed to believe crimes subjecting the assets to forfeiture have been committed. Denying such a hearing permits the prosecution to decide both that a defendant should face trial and should do so without his counsel of choice. In an opinion that therefore seems somewhat shocking, the Supreme Court in Kaley v. United States rejected the defendants’ claim that they had a Sixth Amendment right to such a hearing. A different decision, however, would have required lower courts to determine what amount of potentially forfeitable assets could be released to fund a defense. Either courts would have released the amount of money that would be provided for an indigent, thus still effectively denying the right to counsel of choice, or courts would have identified a greater amount of money needed for a private defense, highlighting the justice gap between rich and poor 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/231045557.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4394231558 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866594966 
LOK |0 005 20231020043645 
LOK |0 008 231020||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE68764777 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw