BostonUniStudent t1_j7q10d7 wrote on February 8, 2023 at 4:28 PM

Reply to comment by Mission_Albatross916 in Exonerees in Mass. state drug lab scandal want their seized property and money back by ak47workaccnt

The only fair way to do it is retrials without the tainted evidence. And it looks like the state decided not to retry a lot of the cases. Okay ... Well, those people should be considered "Not Guilty" now.

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q1993 wrote on February 8, 2023 at 4:30 PM

I think that’s what happened? For all non violent convictions which were affected by certain years at the two labs with the two corrupt workers

BostonUniStudent t1_j7q2975 wrote on February 8, 2023 at 4:36 PM

It's a little wonky. The men can be treated as innocent and the evidence be treated as associated with a criminal activity still. Civil asset forfeiture has a separate standard of proof and even a separate trial.

So weirdly, the money can be found guilty. Or more accurately "more probable than not that it was associated with criminal activity." Which I'm told can be represented by a greater than 50% chance. Whereas guilt in the criminal context is closer to 99% (some lawyers put a closer to 85%, it just depends on your definition of reasonable doubt).

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q2fcm wrote on February 8, 2023 at 4:37 PM

Oh right! I forgot that part about the assets being the guilty ones. So insane.

the_falconator t1_j7rawnf wrote on February 8, 2023 at 9:18 PM

It's like OJ winning the criminal trial and still losing the civil case, different standards of proof.

BostonUniStudent t1_j7rc0x9 wrote on February 8, 2023 at 9:25 PM

It's kind of like that inasmuch as it's civil and not criminal. And it's been awhile since I've read up on that case. But I think he was found civilly liable for a wrongful death.

These civil asset forfeiture cases require no such finding of individual guilt or innocence (responsible or not responsible). This is trial against the evidence itself.

It might be like State of New York v. Yacht.