[DanielBMarkham]

" but we're not looking at them deciding his guilt or innocence here"

Yes, I got that. My point is that positing the various ways the case plays out with whether the person is guilty or innocent is outside the scope of the question. Alito's avenue of analysis was misguided. It doesn't matter whether they're guilty or innocent because we're asking what the government should do with the funds before we know the result of the case

And I understand the point of appeals courts. I'm making an argument based on a plain, layman's understanding of how the system should work. I have no doubt that for those inside the system, it all makes some kind of weird sense. "Hey, we took all of your money, but look! The paperwork has been done correctly!"

I also understand that the Supreme Court disagrees with me. Probably isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. Those guys are a hell of a lot smarter than I am. My best argument is that at some point it makes sense legally but yet you lose consent of the governed. Taking somebody's money so they can't afford a lawyer -- along with a half-dozen or so other bone-headed decisions over the last decade or two -- begin to cross that line. Somebody should speak up. That "speaking up" is not a legal argument; it is a political one.

Sometimes the law is an ass.

Thank you for the instruction on the split between the Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues. Lots of detail to consider here.

[Natsu]

I'd like to point out that I'm not "in the system" as it were. I'm not a lawyer, I just happen to have studied a bit of legal procedure in college and the Supreme Court in particular. Thus, I know the process and why one normally petitions them for a writ of certiorari simply because the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over only some obscure types of cases and thus does not hear most cases. See also: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari

> we're asking what the government should do with the funds before we know the result of the case

The converse is that we have two innocent people who have money frozen. One can pay for a lawyer, the other cannot.

If you find this is a Sixth Amendment violation, then isn't the Public Defenders office itself a violation? If that's the case, why are they not arguing that we cure that? The answer is that it wouldn't help them: they are able to afford a rather expensive lawyer. It's true that a full defense is expensive, but they're just causing themselves harm with an expensive Supreme Court appeal rather than saving the funds for the main defense. There are quite a few weird expenses involved there, not the least of which is the special booklets prepared for each justice and several other parties which have a large number of very exacting rules. Also, of note, is the fact that one can petition the Supreme Court 'in forma pauperis' and the Supremes will in fact pick up the tab for all that if you actually can't pay. They have accepted pro se applicants who were then provided representation for all the expensive formalities and such.

I think there is a good point that it's not at all fair that some people can get their own lawyer while others cannot. It would be better if that was fair for everyone, rather than rich people paying for better treatment.

Alas, that's not at all what petitioner is asking for. They're only interested in a rule that would help themselves here and that would encourage people who defrauded or robbed others to spend the stolen money first. So I steal all of your money and use it to pay for an expensive lawyer to get away with it, while poor but innocent people would have to rely on a state-appointed lawyer.