Guilty until proven innocent, in Colorado

[araomd]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-innocent-in-colorado/?utm_term=.da9bda259fe1

 

[TapcoFan]

Interesting. Seems like civil forfeiture is held to the same standards as recovery on legal practice - the actual innocence standard. Ultimately, although a defendant may not be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court, the civil courts have a much lower burden of proof. Ultimately, I think the appellant has an uphill battle - the trial court is likely to affirm the fees imposed.

 

[woodstock]

She was convicted of 5 counts of child molesting, then that decision was reversed on appeal. WTF? Insult to injury they kept the money they forced her to pay as an inmate

 

[Sigo]

Interesting. Seems like civil forfeiture is held to the same standards as recovery on legal practice - the actual innocence standard. Ultimately, although a defendant may not be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court, the civil courts have a much lower burden of proof. Ultimately, I think the appellant has an uphill battle - the trial court is likely to affirm the fees imposed.

I thought of the same issue. Interesting that the government can confiscate property without proving actual criminal activity. When jurisdictions forget that they are to be the protectors of our property rights, they abrogate their purpose for our relinquishing sovereignty to them. Citizens must remember that when they allow their government to arbitrarily confiscate property from someone under the guize of some greater good, they set the precedence that may someday remove their property for some greater good.

 

[TapcoFan]

I thought of the same issue. Interesting that the government can confiscate property without proving actual criminal activity. When jurisdictions forget that they are to be the protectors of our property rights, they abrogate their purpose for our relinquishing sovereignty to them. Citizens must remember that when they allow their government to arbitrarily confiscate property from someone under the guize of some greater good, they set the precedence that may someday remove their property for some greater good.

The reason for this outcome is the result of bifurcated criminal proceedings that you won't see in a civil setting. First there is the trial to determine guilt or innocence, then another for sentencing. The standard used in a guilt/innocence setting is beyond a reasonable doubt, but forfeiture is part of sentencing/punishment, so the burden of proof is much lower. The state may not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offense, but the state may have been able to prove by preponderant evidence that the offense was committed. The appellant may have an 8th Amendment claim, but there would have to be some research done on whether or not factors are met.
Ultimately, the taking is not arbitrary - it is the result of a criminal proceeding and the appellant had due process of law. It's a high bar indeed, but just because it's a high bar doesn't mean that there is no claim or that the taking was, as a matter of law, improper.