Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ak47workaccnt OP t1_j7p1wyv wrote

>To seize money or property under civil forfeiture rules, the state needs to show there's "probable cause" that it's connected to the criminal activity, Fick explained. If someone wants the seized assets back, he said, it's their responsibility to bring an action to prove it wasn't connected to an offense.

Just a reminder that civil asset forfeiture is highway robbery.

>The state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2018 that civil forfeitures in the Farak and Dookhan cases do not need to be returned.

I don't understand how they can vacate all of those convictions, but keep the money they stole from them.

184

3720-To-One t1_j7pfsu2 wrote

It’s utterly insane in a country where innocent until proven guilty, that civil asset forfeiture is still a thing.

62

The-Shattering-Light t1_j7pzr24 wrote

“Innocent until proven guilty” really doesn’t exist in the US and hasn’t for a long time.

“Guilty unless proven wealthy” is closer

24

TreeEleben t1_j7pqh89 wrote

America is now "guilty until proven innocent". Has been for quite a while.

1

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q0bva wrote

Guilty until proven innocent, but even then you don’t get your money and belongings back

2

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7pagv5 wrote

It’s utterly insane, and I’m sure most people don’t even know about it.

36

BostonUniStudent t1_j7ppjy7 wrote

What's even more insane is that these people were convicted on faked scientific evidence. And the state still doesn't want to give their money back.

The tricky thing is, I get it, some of them may have been guilty. But corners were cut on the evidence.

30

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q0kh2 wrote

Absolutely. And the coverup went higher up the food chain. AND people are essentially forced j to plea deals, regardless of guilt, so they system is rigged even without false or possibly contaminated results.

10

BostonUniStudent t1_j7q10d7 wrote

The only fair way to do it is retrials without the tainted evidence. And it looks like the state decided not to retry a lot of the cases. Okay ... Well, those people should be considered "Not Guilty" now.

2

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q1993 wrote

I think that’s what happened? For all non violent convictions which were affected by certain years at the two labs with the two corrupt workers

2

BostonUniStudent t1_j7q2975 wrote

It's a little wonky. The men can be treated as innocent and the evidence be treated as associated with a criminal activity still. Civil asset forfeiture has a separate standard of proof and even a separate trial.

So weirdly, the money can be found guilty. Or more accurately "more probable than not that it was associated with criminal activity." Which I'm told can be represented by a greater than 50% chance. Whereas guilt in the criminal context is closer to 99% (some lawyers put a closer to 85%, it just depends on your definition of reasonable doubt).

6

the_falconator t1_j7rawnf wrote

It's like OJ winning the criminal trial and still losing the civil case, different standards of proof.

2

BostonUniStudent t1_j7rc0x9 wrote

It's kind of like that inasmuch as it's civil and not criminal. And it's been awhile since I've read up on that case. But I think he was found civilly liable for a wrongful death.

These civil asset forfeiture cases require no such finding of individual guilt or innocence (responsible or not responsible). This is trial against the evidence itself.

It might be like State of New York v. Yacht.

2

sydiko t1_j7qra58 wrote

You should watch the video of a cop taking a man's life savings under civil forfeiture. It took him 8 months to get his money back.

6

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7qxh5f wrote

Well, that made me furious and nauseated. How fucking disgusting.

At least this guy got his money back but I’m sure that’s super rare.

3

sydiko t1_j7r9ii2 wrote

Its crazy isn't it? Reminds me be cautious around law enforcement all the time.

2

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7ra0dw wrote

No doubt. And he got pulled over because he was NOT speeding. That just happened to me a couple months ago. I was going 30 in a 35 on rural MA roads at night in the rain. In the end I didn’t get a ticket but the cop tried telling me that I had had a ticket in MA in the past - totally not true. I told him so and he just backed down and said “ok have a nice night.” But the whole time I was fuming and it was all I could do to keep my mouth shut and be “polite.”

2

phoenixofsevenhills t1_j7u2q6c wrote

Wow .. so messed up! He kept his composure too, I mean I would have definitely snapped and been arrested! That's a TON of cash to drive with in your rental trunk!!!

1

crake t1_j7pcz7h wrote

I haven’t read the SJCs opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it has to do with the evidentiary burden that needs to be met for civil asset seizure vs the evidentiary burden to be met for a criminal conviction.

Generally speaking, in the civil context, the plaintiff (ie, the state in these cases) need only show by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief from the defendant (ie, asset forfeiture).

By contrast, to take away someone’s liberty, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) that the person committed the crime that they are charged with. BARD is a very high threshold to meet, much higher than clear and convincing evidence, as used in the civil context.

Dookhan’s malfeasance introduced reasonable doubt as to whether the substances she tested were controlled substances. That negates the criminal conviction (because no reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty BARD in view of the tainted evidence). However, it does not exonerate the defendant. The fact that the defendant is entitled to a ‘not guilty’ verdict means that the state has not proven its case BARD.

The lower threshold for civil asset seizure means that a defendant can be simultaneously ‘not guilty’ under the BARD standard and ‘guilty’ under the civil clear and convincing evidence standard.

Coincidentally, this is exactly what happened to OJ: he was found not guilty BARD in the criminal case, but the Goldman family won their untimely death civil lawsuit against him for murdering their son, due to the lower evidentiary standard applied in civil suits.

11

ak47workaccnt OP t1_j7pdavm wrote

This sounds factually correct, but awful. The worst kind of correct.

20

PakkyT t1_j7pf2db wrote

Your OJ example was the result of a civil case brought to court and a judgement (by an actual judge) rendered. This is not the same thing as having your property seized and then the government just deciding on their own to not return it even though you were not guilty (legally speaking) of any crime. As there was no civil case that allowed the seized assets to be kept by the government, they should be returned. If the government doesn't want to, then they need a court judgement stating they can keep it.

13

crake t1_j7v57r3 wrote

Yeah, my example isn't exactly correct, but it's generally correct (i.e., the reason the assets were not returned notwithstanding the overturned convictions is because of the different standard of proof required for civil asset forfeiture).

The burden of proof for civil asset forfeiture is actually lower than the burden of proof for obtaining a judgment in a civil case, and there is no trial (unlike the OJ civil case). The test is (generally stated) whether police believe based on a preponderance of the evidence (as opposed to clear and convincing evidence, my error made above) that the assets are fruits of a crime, the burden is on the defendant to show that they are not fruits of a crime. In Massachusetts, the standard is that police must show probable cause to believe that the assets are fruits of a crime, a very easy threshold to meet.

>As there was no civil case that allowed the seized assets to be kept by the government, they should be returned.

I agree with you in principle, because I think civil asset forfeiture is a taking and should be subject to due process of law. Unfortunately for those who do not support civil asset forfeiture, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld it's constitutionality, so it isn't going anywhere (unless the Court changes its mind).

1

Positive-Material t1_j7pnj1r wrote

It's highway robbery when it is done with fraudulent probable cause and then forced into a plea deal with threats, which seems to be standard practice.

3

brufleth t1_j7r41n7 wrote

MA civil commitment (imprisonment) laws are also very backwards.

There isn't a legislative will to fix them because nobody wants to be accused of being "soft on crime."

3

PabloX68 t1_j7q7068 wrote

I don't understand how this isn't a violation of the 5th amendment, but it's not the first time the MA supreme judicial court hasn't cared about the US Constitution.

2

foolproofphilosophy t1_j7rzff2 wrote

It’s like OJ Simpson: acquitted of murder but guilty of wrongful death because criminal and civil standards are different. Just ignore the part about how he had juries for each trial.

s/

2

spg1611 t1_j7szzmj wrote

It’s not though… who cares if a drug dealers car is sold to help the state lmao

0