SCALES OF INJUSTICE
….Sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit...
President George Bush, 2005 State of the Union
In 2005, the brothers were arrested, detained and denied bond on sealed indictments. At the time, the United States had policies, which grossly interfered with legal representation of defendants accused of drug trafficking. The policies interfere with a defendant’s right to retain an attorney of choice. The policies also subject attorneys accepting payment for a legal defense to criminal charges under money laundering laws. In the United States, every person who is accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the government.
Every person is entitled to bail or bond hearing under the Eighth Amendment. Both brothers were denied bond from 2005 and remained incarcerated awaiting trial until 2007. The record is devoid of any evidence establishing that either attorney demanded a bond hearing after the initial denial. Therefore, in violation of the Speedy Trial Clause and the Right to a Speedy Trial, both brothers remained incarcerated for almost two and a half years before being sentenced in 2008. They …show more content…
The excessive fines clause also authorizes civil and criminal forfeiture of property seized during or as a result of drug raids or activity. However, their attorneys failed to challenge the federal drug forfeiture statute because it does not authorize an exemption for assets to be used for legal representation consistent with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Even where an attorney may lose such an argument, where a client is faced with life imprisonment, the attorney must act with due diligence and zealous advocacy. Here, neither attorney engaged in constitutional challenges to the CCE statute, the forfeiture statute, or for bond after the initial
….Sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit...
President George Bush, 2005 State of the Union
In 2005, the brothers were arrested, detained and denied bond on sealed indictments. At the time, the United States had policies, which grossly interfered with legal representation of defendants accused of drug trafficking. The policies interfere with a defendant’s right to retain an attorney of choice. The policies also subject attorneys accepting payment for a legal defense to criminal charges under money laundering laws. In the United States, every person who is accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the government.
Every person is entitled to bail or bond hearing under the Eighth Amendment. Both brothers were denied bond from 2005 and remained incarcerated awaiting trial until 2007. The record is devoid of any evidence establishing that either attorney demanded a bond hearing after the initial denial. Therefore, in violation of the Speedy Trial Clause and the Right to a Speedy Trial, both brothers remained incarcerated for almost two and a half years before being sentenced in 2008. They …show more content…
The excessive fines clause also authorizes civil and criminal forfeiture of property seized during or as a result of drug raids or activity. However, their attorneys failed to challenge the federal drug forfeiture statute because it does not authorize an exemption for assets to be used for legal representation consistent with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Even where an attorney may lose such an argument, where a client is faced with life imprisonment, the attorney must act with due diligence and zealous advocacy. Here, neither attorney engaged in constitutional challenges to the CCE statute, the forfeiture statute, or for bond after the initial