[robertpaulsen]

"for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime"

Should the accused be allowed to sell the property (and hide the money) before a verdict?

[Lazamataz]

Should the accused be allowed to sell the property (and hide the money) before a verdict?

Sell the property, yes.

Hide the money, get hit with a new charge.

[no-s]

Should the accused be permitted to sell his property and hire representation before a verdict? and so on...

[Oztrich Boy]

Should the accused be allowed to sell the property (and hide the money) before a verdict?

Well, the State can, and often does.

[Jack Black]

"Should the accused be allowed to sell the property (and hide the money) before a verdict? "

Is that your final answer? Because it's pretty pathetic. The trial took place, the owner was found not guilty. Why are they even considering taking his property? Did a jury in a civil trail find him guilty of something. NO. Does the 7th Ammendment mean anything to you? You know the one that gives you a right to a jury trial in civil matters where the "value in the controversy shall exceed $20" Apparently not. How about the 8th, you know "nor excessive fines imposed". Given that it is real property there is NO RISK that it could be sold out from under the government. A simple lein could assure that, but again I don't even see why it is an issue at this point.

[MontanaBeth]

"Should the accused be allowed to sell the land and hide the assests?"


It's HIS land.