In the now notorious case of our evil neighbor whose assests were frozen and he was consequently forced to discharge his pricey attorney - FJL posed:
If this stands up, what's to stop the government/prosecution from using this reason (that the money is needed to compensate the victims) to freeze any defendant's funds, and as a result keep that defendant from getting a vigorous defense?
Implicit in this quandry is the unfortuanate implication (arguably true) that money buys a better defense then the state provides.
(This is one case in which I doubt ABC will pay $200,000 for the photographs 
)
der Brucer
I don't know what case you are talking about, but it sounds like it's civil. I don't think the state provides you a lawyer for a civil case.
Oh trust me, there will be civil case galore, but the case at hand is criminal:
our local pediatrician is charged with 471 counts of rape and exploitation involving 103 patients (some as young as 3 months), all of which he captured on 13 hours of video tape.
The crimes were committed over a more than a 10 year time span, and various authorities had allegations of misconduct for years – setting up all sorts of opportunities for civil cases against the hospital, medical associations, regulatory agencies, etc.
I suspect he will be found sane enough for trial and the defense will pursue a not guilty by reason of insanity defense. There seems an almost zero chance he will ever be free – the only bargaining chip the defense holds is a plea that will keep the victims from having to testify, and the video tapes shown, in exchange for “considerations” of his confinement options for life.
The real issue for the community is how do we prevent this sort of thing from happening again? (And should other entities be held responsible for not stopping him sooner?)
der Brucer
