Luis v. United States

Last updated

Luis v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 10, 2015
Decided March 30, 2016
Full case nameSila Luis v. United States
Docket no. 14-419
Citations578 U.S. 5 ( more )
136 S. Ct. 1083; 194 L. Ed. 2d 256
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Luis, 966 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2013); affirmed, 564 F. App'x 493 (11th Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 2798 (2015).
Holding
Pre-trial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain a counsel of the defendant's choice violates the Sixth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
PluralityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor
ConcurrenceThomas (in judgment)
DissentKennedy, joined by Alito
DissentKagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VI

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity. [1]

Contents

Background

United States federal law allows courts to freeze a criminal defendant's assets when that individual is accused of violating federal banking or healthcare laws. [2] However, assets may only be seized if they are "traceable to the crime" or if the property is "obtained as a result" of the crime and the defendant is either in the process of disposing or alienating those assets or the defendant intends to dispose of or alienate those assets in the future. [3] To freeze these assets, the Attorney General of the United States is authorized to initiate civil proceedings to obtain a restraining order that freezes these assets or "any such property or property of equivalent value". [4] In 2012, Luis Sila was charged by a federal grand jury of committing various health care crimes. [5] Federal prosecutors claimed that Luis fraudulently procured nearly $45 million; prosecutors alleged that Luis spent most of the money she had acquired. [6] In an attempt to preserve the $2 million remaining in her account for the payment of restitution and penalties, prosecutors applied for a pre-trial order that would prevent Luis from spending any of the remaining $2 million. [6] The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida approved the prosecutors' request and granted an order that prohibited Luis from "dissipating" her assets "up to the equivalent value of the proceeds of the Federal health care fraud ($45 million)". [7]

Both Luis and federal prosecutors conceded that the court's order restrained assets that were entirely unrelated to the alleged criminal activity and that the order prevented Luis from hiring the attorney of her choice to defend her at her criminal trial. [6] In its ruling, the district court also recognized that the order would prevent Luis from hiring the attorney of her choice, but the court stated that "there is no Sixth Amendment right to use untainted, substitute assets to hire counsel", [8] and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in a per curiam decision. [9] Citing Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States [10] and United States v. Monsanto, [11] the Eleventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court of the United States's criminal forfeiture jurisprudence foreclosed constitutional challenges to the seizure of untainted assets. [12] Luis appealed the Eleventh Circuit's decision, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case. [6]

Opinion of the Court

Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice Stephen Breyer held that "the pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment". [13] In an opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that "the Sixth Amendment prevents the Government from freezing untainted assets in order to secure a potential forfeiture". [14] Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plurality opinion and Justice Thomas's opinion both "[create] perverse incentives and [provide] protection for defendants who spend stolen money rather than their own". [15] Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a dissenting opinion in which she stated that "I am not altogether convinced that ... the Government’s interest in recovering the proceeds of crime ought to trump the defendant’s (often highly consequential) right to retain counsel of choice", but ultimately concluded that United States v. Monsanto should control the outcome of the case because Luis never asked the Court to overrule Monsanto in her arguments before the Court. [16]

Commentary and analysis

In her analysis of the case for SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe wrote that "it’s not clear how significant the effect of this decision will actually be" because the government can still "use tracing rules to distinguish between tainted and untainted assets when the two are intermingled". [17] Mark Joseph Stern described the case as "triumph for the right to counsel, at a time when it is in desperate need of a win" and wrote that the Court's decision "send[s] a clear message that the Sixth Amendment’s Assistance of Counsel provision remains robust". [18] In a review of the case for Esquire , Charles P. Pierce praised the Court's decision and wrote that "my every instinct tells me that the Supreme Court shouldn't have to [declare that the government cannot] pauperize a criminal defendant". [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.

Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by a less-than-unanimous verdict in a felony criminal case. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Although federal law requires federal juries to reach criminal verdicts unanimously, the Court held Oregon's practice did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and so allowed it to continue. In Johnson v. Louisiana, a case decided on the same day, the Court held that Louisiana's similar practice of allowing criminal convictions by a jury vote of 9–3 did not violate due process or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court considered the role of standby counsel in a criminal trial where the defendant conducted his own defense. In this case the defendant claimed his Sixth Amendment right to present his own case in a criminal trial was violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel.

Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009), is a 5–4 decision by the United States Supreme Court that overruled the Court's decision in Michigan v. Jackson. The case concerned the validity of a defendant's waiver of his right to counsel during a police interrogation. In reversing Jackson, the Court said such a waiver was valid.

Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a criminal defendant's initial appearance before a magistrate judge, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Attachment does not also require that a prosecutor be aware of that initial proceeding or involved in its conduct.

Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during a pre-indictment identification.

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a lineup held after indictment.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.

Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified several procedures for sentencing defendants in capital cases. Specifically, the Court held that judges are not required to affirmatively instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants "are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events". This case included the last majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia before his death in February 2016.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld a death sentence despite the defendant's argument that he should not be sentenced to death because he was suffering from drug-induced psychosis when he committed the crimes. Cone also argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to present sufficient mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial and that his attorney inappropriately waived his final argument during the sentencing phase. In an 8–1 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the United States Supreme Court denied Cone's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the actions taken by Cone's attorney during the sentencing phase were "tactical decisions" and that the state courts that denied Cone's appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established law. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Cone was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to "subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing."

Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may bring a claim under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to challenge pretrial confinement. In a 6-2 majority opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court stated that "the Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial detention even beyond the start of legal process". This decision reversed and remanded the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas also joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.

Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to a hearing to determine whether prosecutors in his 1982 death penalty trial violated his right to due process by withholding exculpatory evidence. The defendant, Gary Cone, filed a petition for postconviction relief from a 1982 death sentence in which he argued that prosecutors violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have shown that his drug addiction affected his behavior. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court held that Cone was entitled to a hearing to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated Cone's right to due process; the Court noted that "the quantity and the quality of the suppressed evidence lends support to Cone’s position at trial that he habitually used excessive amounts of drugs, that his addiction affected his behavior during his crime spree". In 2016, Gary Cone died from natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes applies regardless of whether a defendant has waived the right to appeal.

Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Court's prior decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), which had ruled that jury verdicts in criminal trials must be unanimous under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Ramos did not apply retroactively to earlier cases prior to their verdict in Ramos.

References

  1. ↑ Luis v. United States,No. 14-419 , 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1, 16 (2016) (plurality opinion).
  2. ↑ 18 U.S.C.   § 1345.
  3. ↑ 18 U.S.C.   § 1345(a)(2) .
  4. ↑ 18 U.S.C.   § 1345(a)(2)(B)(i) .
  5. ↑ Luis, slip op. at 1-2.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Luis, slip op. at 2.
  7. ↑ Luis, slip op. at 2 (quoting App. to Pet. for Cert. A–6) (internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Luis, 966F. Supp. 2d1321 ( S.D. Fla. 2013).
  8. ↑ Luis, slip op. at 2 (quoting United States v. Luis, 966 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (S.D. Fla. June 21, 2013)) (internal citations omitted).
  9. ↑ United States v. Luis, 564F. App'x493 , 494( 11th Cir. 2014).
  10. ↑ Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 631 (1989).
  11. ↑ United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 616 (1989).
  12. ↑ Luis, 564 F. App'x at 494 (per curiam).
  13. ↑ Luis, slip op. at 3 (plurality opinion).
  14. ↑ Luis, slip op. at 1 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment).
  15. ↑ Luis, slip op. at 17 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
  16. ↑ Luis, slip op. at 1-2 (Kagan, J., dissenting).
  17. ↑ Amy Howe, Opinion analysis: Pretrial freeze of “untainted” assets violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice , SCOTUSblog (March 31, 2016).
  18. ↑ Mark Joseph Stern, The Supreme Court Affirms Your Right to Hire a Lawyer of Your Choosing , Slate (March 30, 2016).
  19. ↑ Charles P. Pierce, The Supreme Court Just Did Something the Supreme Court Shouldn't Have to Do , Esquire (March 31, 2016).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.