"and—under civil law—the burden of proof is on the defense to demonstrate their property is innocent."
Really? I thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution side to demonstrate guilt.
Really? I thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution side to demonstrate guilt.
One well known case in the early 90's was an old black gentlemen who owned a plant nursery, and was detained at an airport for the crime of being black and in possession of $30,000. I think the story was featured on 60 Minutes and the NY Times.
The guy was the son of a sharecropper, was illiterate, did not use checks or credit cards. He had flown from his home to Texas every year with a bag of money to buy plants to ship north to sell after becoming too old to drive. He wasn't committing a crime, so he wasn't arrested -- but his money was kept as it was considered suspicious by the Federal authorities. It was a catch-22 situation, as litigating against the Feds will cost alot more than $30k.
These sort of shakedowns are common in the third world by corrupt police. Make no mistake, this is the same sort of police here. Didn't used to be like this. There has always been some corruption of course, but it wasn't the normal way that things are done.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It is worse than the "your body is a container of alcohol" line used when prosecuting underage drinkers. How can US politicians back something which is so obviously at odds with the rule of law?
But hey, it doesn't affect me directly so why should I care? /s
Theft is a crime.
Of course, whose going to prosecute the prosecutors?
But in civil cases it's "balance of probability".
But there are ways to get that kind of low standard in criminal trials, as well.
What's REALLY fun is when a case gives prosecutors the ability to throw in accusations they don't intend to prove to the usual standard just to inflate sentencing guidelines.
Though, it looks like the Supreme Court is currently taking up a related issue (instance where someone was given additional time due to the judge's application of a 'accomplice brandished a weapon' allegation by the prosecution to raise the minimum sentence. So maybe this practice is on its last legs. (a man can dream).