ndiamond@despammed.com wrote:
Under a certain condition, some of the promises that
Amendment VI makes to the accused are a public trial,
by an impartial jury in the State where the crime
shall have been [allegedly?] committed, to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation, and the have
the Assistance of Counsel. But the condition is that
the prosecution be criminal. In the past in this
newsgroup I have learned that deprivation of property
and sometimes deprivation of liberty are non-criminal
actions.
Well, it can be depending on the offense and the potential
penalties.
So in these cases the accused has no right
to a public trial, has no right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation, and has no right
to counsel? The US government is allowed to seize a
person's money without even informing the person of
the details of the charge and the date and place when
the trial was held?
In a civil action by the government (e.g. a forfeiture action to
recover drug money or property used to commit a crime), the
government is still required to give "due process." Unless there
are particular statues that define due process differently for that
specific situation, he will still have the rights you enumerated.
But he will probably not be entitled to have the government pay for
his lawyer if he can't afford one.
Amendment V says that due process of law is required,
but this seems to provide no protection. When the
victim is not even informed of the date and place
when the trial was held, a default judgement seems
like a pretty obvious outcome, right?
No, wrong.
Stu
