Angiulo: Sup Ct Proves Some Things are Beyond Politics

Monday, April 04, 2016

Leonardo Angiulo, GoLocalWorcester Legal Contributor

If you have become concerned with the legislature's unwillingness to vote on the President's recent Supreme Court nominee you are not alone. Whether you support the nominee, or not, there may be some disillusionment with the political process if congress fails to act. No matter how you feel about individual legislators or presidential candidates consider that, at its core, the Supreme Court is not a political body. While their decisions may have public policy implications, the justices themselves are not elected and do not play to an electorate. The way the justices aligned on a recent opinion is an example of this.

In Luis v. United States the petitioner was a criminal defendant whose assets were seized because of her charges. More specifically, Ms. Luis was charged with various health care fraud offenses. That law permits law enforcement to seize property so that the defrauded parties will recover their losses in the event that the defendant is convicted. The problem in the Luis case was the nature of the property to be seized.

According to the law, not only could law enforcement freeze assets traceable to the crime, but they could also grab untainted property of equivalent value. In practice, as explained in the Luis case, this could mean anything. Given the large scale of the alleged fraud, cited as approximately $45 million, Ms. Luis found herself without any money left to hire attorneys after $2 million in untainted funds were frozen.

The fundamental nature of a criminal defendant's right to counsel was the focal point of the majority's opinion in this case. As the court explained, the Sixth Amendment affords people a fair opportunity for a defendant to secure counsel of their choosing. While this opportunity is not unlimited, it does include the right to choose a qualified attorney that they can afford. What the majority ultimately said was that a rule that prevents defendants from using untainted funds to get a lawyer is unconstitutional.

Of note in these times of political discord, is how the majority was formed. Of all the justices, take, for example, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas who are known as more conservative ies.aspx ), there are a few that have become commonly known and have a special place in popular c members. Compare their reputations with those of Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor who some think of as more liberal.

These four came together with Justice Breyer to rule in favor of returning the untainted funds to Ms. Luis. They may enjoy support from different groups in the media and society, but it did not prevent them from working together on an opinion regarding a fundamental right. If the opinions about each individual justices' political leanings are true, this case may be one of the few bipartisan efforts coming out of D.C. in recent weeks.

Leonardo Angiulo is an Attorney in the city of Worcester handling legal matters across the Commonwealth. He can be reached by email at [email protected] and found on the web at www.angiulolaw.com

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Email to a friend Permalink

Angiulo: Sup Ct Proves Some Things are Beyond Politics

Related Articles

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Most Popular Articles

Sign Up for the Daily Eblast

Sign Up for the Daily Eblast