By Adam Liptak – March 30, 2016
For the New York Times
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday arose from the prosecution of a Florida woman for Medicare fraud that, according to the government, involved $45 million in charges for unneeded or nonexistent services.
The government may not freeze assets needed to pay criminal defense lawyers if the assets are not linked to a crime, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a 5-to-3 decision.
Almost all of Ms. Luis’s profits from the fraud, prosecutors said, had been spent by the time charges were filed. Prosecutors instead asked a judge to freeze $2 million of Ms. Luis’s funds that were not connected to the suspected fraud, saying the money would be used to pay fines and provide restitution should she be convicted. Ms. Luis said she needed the money to pay her lawyers.
The judge issued an order freezing her assets. That order, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, violated her Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in a plurality opinion said the case was simple. The government can seize, Justice Breyer wrote, “a robber’s loot, a drug seller’s cocaine, a burglar’s tools, or other property associated with the planning, implementing, or concealing of a crime.” But it cannot, he said, freeze money or other assets unconnected to the crime.
The crucial point, Justice Breyer wrote, was that the right to counsel is a fundamental constitutional guarantee, while the government’s interest in recovering money is merely important.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the arch conservative, agreed. If the right to counsel is a fundamental constitutional guarantee, he said, it cannot be weighed against other interests.
By David Zapp and Johanna Zapp