Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grand Jury Seized Assets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears challenge to long-frozen funds in impounded grand jury investigation
Summary
Appellant told the court the Attorney General has held seized funds for more than three years without charging crimes or returning money; the Commonwealth said intervention into a secret grand jury investigation is inappropriate and that forfeiture processes and statute of limitations limit relief.
The Appeals Court heard argument in an impounded matter in which counsel for an appellant asked the court to order return of funds that the Attorney General seized more than three years earlier during a grand jury investigation.
Michael Natola, representing the appellant, said the government has frozen the client’s property “three years, five months and 28 days” without charging him and without explaining when, if ever, a prosecution or forfeiture would be filed. Natola urged the court to recognize limits on how long the Commonwealth may hold property absent either a prosecution or a forfeiture proceeding.
Natola said the appellant sought only the return of legitimately-earned funds and argued earlier civil and criminal remedies had not provided effective relief; he characterized the delay as constitutionally problematic and contended the seizure was functionally a constructive forfeiture absent timely proceedings.
Assistant Attorney General Nicole Nixon, appearing for the Commonwealth, urged the panel to reject intervention into a grand jury investigation. She told the court that the motion to intervene was filed late in the proceeding and that Rule 24(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not govern secret grand jury proceedings. Nixon said the grand jury process is historically secret and that the subject and status of the investigation are not material to the intervention question. She acknowledged that the relevant statutory provision (G. L. c. 276, §3) requires return of property no longer needed for an investigation or trial but said the record contains no developed factual showing that the property is no longer needed.
Natola pressed the court on standing and timeliness and argued that longstanding case law requires forfeiture proceedings to be brought within a reasonable time. Nixon said the time the Commonwealth can hold property is constrained by the statute of limitations for underlying offenses and by the need to preserve prosecutorial confidentiality; she suggested civil remedies and, in some federal contexts, 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims have been used where appropriate.
The panel indicated it would take the impounded matter under advisement.
