Term: 2013
Docket: 12-464
Kaley v. United States
- Pro
12-464 KALEY V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 677 F.3d 1316 CERT. GRANTED 3/18/2013 QUESTION PRESENTED: Title 18 U.S.C. § 853(e) authorizes a district court, upon an ex parte motion of the United States, to restrain an indicted defendant's assets that are subject to forfeiture upon conviction. The statute does not provide for a post-restraint, pretrial adversarial hearing at which the indicted defendant may challenge the propriety of the restraints. In United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989), this Court rejected a Fifth and Sixth Amend-ment challenge to the restraint of an indicted defen-dant's assets needed to pay counsel of choice but, in a footnote, explicitly left open the question -by then already dividing the circuits -"whether the Due Process Clause requires a hearing before a pretrial restraining order can be imposed." Id. at 615 n.10. Since 1989, the circuit courts have continued to wrestle with the issue, producing a firmly entrenched split among the eleven circuits that have addressed it. Acknowledging the widespread conflict, the Eleventh Circuit held that assets needed to retain counsel of choice may remain frozen through trial based solely on a restraining order obtained ex parte, despite a defendant's timely demand for a hearing to challenge the viability of the charges and forfeiture counts that purportedly justify the pretrial restraint. United States v. Kaley, 677 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. April 26, 2013) (“Kaley II”), App. 1-31. Thus, the question presented in this petition, which would resolve a split in the circuits, is: When a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order freezes assets needed by a criminal de- fendant to retain counsel of choice, do the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a pretrial, adversarial hearing at which the defendant may challenge the evidentiary support and legal theory of the underlying charges? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-15048
In the case of Kaley v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that criminal defendants who have been indicted by a grand jury do not have the right to challenge a court's decision to freeze their assets before trial if those assets are linked to alleged criminal activities. The ruling upheld federal laws allowing prosecutors to seize or freeze assets they believe were involved in illegal activity, even if those funds could be used for legal defense costs. Defendants Kerri and Brian Kaley had argued this violated their Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice as it left them unable to afford their preferred lawyer for an upcoming trial on charges related with stolen medical devices.
In the dissenting opinion for Kaley v. United States, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, argued that defendants should have the right to challenge a grand jury's conclusion about probable cause in an adversarial hearing when their assets are seized before trial. The dissenters contended that this is especially important because these seizures can prevent defendants from hiring the counsel of their choice. They pointed out that while grand juries play a crucial role in determining whether there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, they do not always get it right and therefore their findings should be able to be challenged in court. Furthermore, they noted that allowing such hearings would not undermine the function or effectiveness of grand juries as feared by the majority but rather provide necessary protection for defendants' rights.
