Supreme Court of the United States
Kerri L. Kaley, Petitioners v. United States.
February 25, 2014571 U.S. 320
Summary
The Supreme Court held that indicted defendants facing a pretrial restraint on their assets under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 853(e) have no constitutional right, at a Monsanto hearing, to relitigate the grand jury's prior probable cause determination that they committed the crimes charged. Building on Monsanto and the settled conclusiveness of grand jury findings (Costello, Gerstein, Williams), the Court reasoned that if judicial review of probable cause is unwarranted to commence a trial or justify detention, it is not required to freeze property; and even applying Mathews v. Eldridge balancing only arguendo, the Government's interest in avoiding premature discovery and the 'too slight' probable value of another probable-cause hearing tip the balance against defendants. The Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit and remanded. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented, contending that due process requires a hearing before assets needed to retain counsel of choice are frozen and that such a hearing would not improperly intrude on the grand jury's role.
Holding
- Whether indicted defendants have a constitutional right, at a pretrial asset-restraint hearing under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 853(e), to relitigate the grand jury's probable cause determination underlying the charges.. No. Criminal defendants have no right to contest or obtain judicial redetermination of the grand jury's finding of probable cause to believe they committed the crimes charged; the grand jury's determination is conclusive for purposes of validating a pretrial freeze, even when the restrained assets are needed to hire counsel.
- Whether, even assuming Mathews v. Eldridge supplies the governing framework, the Due Process Clause combined with the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice entitles defendants to an evidentiary hearing on the probable cause underlying the indictment.. No. Even if Mathews applies, the balance tips against the defendants: the Government's substantial interest in avoiding premature disclosure of witnesses and trial strategy (with attendant risks of witness tampering and jeopardy to witness safety), and the 'lose-lose' choice between protecting forfeiture and protecting the conviction, outweigh a private interest whose erroneous deprivation occurs only absent probable cause, where the 'probable value' of an added adversarial hearing is 'too slight' to support a constitutional requirement.
Docket 12–464.
Cited authorities
Cited by
- Commonwealth v. Marcus D. Anding
- United States v. Syed Bokhari
- Winfield v. Town of Andover
- Price v. Mori
- O'Brien v. Mulligan
- United States of America, Appellee v. Gerald J. Silva, Defendant, Appellant
- United States of America, Appellee v. Todd Rasberry, Defendant, Appellant.
- United States of America, Appellee v. John George, Jr., Defendant, Appellant.