crake t1_j7pcz7h wrote on February 8, 2023 at 1:38 PM

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

I haven’t read the SJCs opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it has to do with the evidentiary burden that needs to be met for civil asset seizure vs the evidentiary burden to be met for a criminal conviction.

Generally speaking, in the civil context, the plaintiff (ie, the state in these cases) need only show by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief from the defendant (ie, asset forfeiture).

By contrast, to take away someone’s liberty, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) that the person committed the crime that they are charged with. BARD is a very high threshold to meet, much higher than clear and convincing evidence, as used in the civil context.

Dookhan’s malfeasance introduced reasonable doubt as to whether the substances she tested were controlled substances. That negates the criminal conviction (because no reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty BARD in view of the tainted evidence). However, it does not exonerate the defendant. The fact that the defendant is entitled to a ‘not guilty’ verdict means that the state has not proven its case BARD.

The lower threshold for civil asset seizure means that a defendant can be simultaneously ‘not guilty’ under the BARD standard and ‘guilty’ under the civil clear and convincing evidence standard.

Coincidentally, this is exactly what happened to OJ: he was found not guilty BARD in the criminal case, but the Goldman family won their untimely death civil lawsuit against him for murdering their son, due to the lower evidentiary standard applied in civil suits.

ak47workaccnt OP t1_j7pdavm wrote on February 8, 2023 at 1:40 PM

This sounds factually correct, but awful. The worst kind of correct.

PakkyT t1_j7pf2db wrote on February 8, 2023 at 1:55 PM

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.

crake t1_j7v57r3 wrote on February 9, 2023 at 5:08 PM

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).