Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PakkyT t1_j7pf2db wrote

Reply to comment by crake in Exonerees in Mass. state drug lab scandal want their seized property and money back by ak47workaccnt

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