On March 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision likely to significantly impact the rights not only of many federal criminal defendants but persons prosecuted by many states as well. In Sila Luis v. U.S., the Court held for the first time that because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of one’s choice includes a defendant’s right to finance that choice, seizing assets needed to retain counsel before trial violates the Sixth Amendment unless those assets are “tainted.” Tainted assets are fruits of the crime or assets used to commit the crime, or contraband, such as illegal drugs. “Innocent assets,” said the Court, cannot be restrained or seized even when the crime’s victim would be entitled to restitution upon the defendant’s conviction and even when the asset, such as money, is fungible.
The Court’s 5-3 vote reversing the Eleventh Circuit’s order affirming the freeze of defendant Luis’s assets included an unusual lineup of justices, with a total of four opinions, including a separate concurrence by Justice Thomas and a separate dissent by Justice Kagan. Justice Breyer wrote the plurality opinion, which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, joined.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
