Luis v. United States (14-419)

argument 14-419

Luis v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Sixth Amendment right to use personal assets for counsel?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument next in case fourteen four nineteen, Luis versus United States.

0:06

Mr.

John G. Roberts 0:06

Shrebnik.

Mr. Shrebnick 0:07

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Sixth Amendment has always recognised the individual's right to spend his own money to obtain the advice and assistance of Counsel. At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, That was the core right. a time when the right to appoint counsel had not yet been established by this Court. We submit that the right To re to representation. by private counsel. must allow a defendant to use assets which she rightfully owns assets over which there is no dispute that she has good title. so that she may be represented by the lawyer that she prefers.

John G. Roberts 0:50

What do you do about Monsanto?

Mr. Shrebnick 0:54

In Monsanto and in Kaplan and Drysdale, those were cases involving tainted funds, drug money.

John G. Roberts 0:59

Right. So what is the logic that says it doesn't violate the Sixth Amendment if it's tainted funds, but it does if it's untainted funds?

Mr. Shrebnick 1:07

Mr. Chief Justice, the the logic is that no one has a rightful claim to drug money. No one can claim a valid property right. in drug proceeds. Ms. Luis is wanting to use assets that are not drug money. They are her lawful assets. They are not connected to any crime at all.

Anthony M. Kennedy 1:26

Well Mr Shrudman, y I mean, compare two situations. One is the one that Monsanto talked about, where yeah, a bank robber goes in and he has a pile of money now. And Monsanto says um uh he you know, even though he wants to use that money to pay for an attorney Too bad. Um now a bank robber goes in, he has a pile of money, he puts it into a separate bank account. He uses that bank account to pay his rent, to pay other expenses, and he uses the money that would have gone for the rent and other expenses to pay a lawyer. Why should the two cases be treated any differently for Sixth Amendment purposes?

Mr. Shrebnick 2:06

Because no amount of so called dissipation, as the government would suggest, negates petitioners' lawful interest in the property she owns, apart from any alleged criminal activity.

John G. Roberts 2:18

Well, but is doesn't it make sense the the sort of substitution rule? I mean if you have got ten million dollars in drug activ uh money and you had five million dollars and you spend ten million, you can't say You know, oh I spent the drug money, uh, you can't touch the five million. It seems to me that's what the statute is doing when it says whatever is a reasonable substitute or assets substituted for.

Mr. Shrebnick 2:41

And so, Mr. Chief Justice, of course, if there is a conviction if the defendant is found guilty. After the conviction, when punishment is determined. There may well be the opportunity for the government to seek Punishment that includes the financial penalties associated with the crime. But before that time Free trial. When the defendant is the exclusive owner of the untainted assets, there is no principle of law that deprives her of the right.

Unknown 3:09

Well, but I I thought the Chief Justice's question was a slightly different.

Unknown 3:19

I was. But uh th there there are degree there are degrees of taint. Um Can you can you follow can you follow the asset? So just to say t tainted or untainted, uh uh it i it's a it's a more difficult question than that.

Mr. Shrebnick 3:35

Well in this case it's a simple uh answer because here we have a stipulation, join appendix one sixty one. that the assets that are the subject of the dispute here today are assets that are undisputedly untainted, not traceable to the crime. They include, for example, family jewelry, not traced any criminal activity. They include real estate that was acquired before the allegations of the conspiracy.

Samuel A. Alito 3:58

Well let me go back to uh Justice Kagan's question and ask it in in a different way. So you we have two brothers and twin brothers, and they rob a bank. They get ten thousand dollars, they split it up, five thousand dollars each. And on that very same day, it happens to be their birthday, and their rich uncle comes and gives each of them five thousand dollars as a birthday present. So they go out to party. And one of them and they both spend five thousand dollars partying, one of them spends the money from the bank robbery, the other one spends the money that was given to them by their rich uncle.