Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090

Background

Kerri and Brian Kaley were indicted on charges for reselling allegedly stolen medical devices and money laundering; the indictment alleged certain assets (including a $500,000 CD) were forfeitable.
The Government obtained a pre-trial restraining order under 21 U.S.C. §853(e)(1) to freeze assets alleged to be forfeitable, blocking the Kaleys from using those funds to pay chosen counsel.
The Kaleys sought to vacate the restraint and requested a hearing to contest the legality of the seizure; they wished to challenge the grand jury’s probable-cause finding that they committed the charged crimes (not the traceability of the assets).
Lower courts divided on whether an indicted defendant may relitigate a grand jury’s probable-cause determination at a §853(e)(1) asset-restraint hearing; the Eleventh Circuit held such relitigation is not permitted.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split and held that an indicted defendant has no constitutional right to contest a grand jury’s probable-cause finding at a pre-trial asset-restraint hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an indicted defendant may contest the grand jury’s probable-cause finding (that the defendant committed the charged crimes) in a §853(e)(1) pretrial asset-restraint hearing	Kaley: due process and Sixth Amendment (right to chosen counsel) require a judicial hearing to relitigate probable cause so they can use frozen assets to hire counsel	U.S.: grand jury probable-cause findings are historically conclusive; relitigation would undermine grand jury role and burden government interests in preserving forfeitable assets	Court: No constitutional right to relitigate grand jury’s probable-cause finding at such a hearing; grand jury determination is conclusive
Whether Mathews v. Eldridge balancing requires an adversary hearing to contest the grand jury finding before freezing assets needed for counsel	Kaley: Mathews balancing favors defendant because loss of counsel choice is weighty and hearing would prevent erroneous deprivation	U.S.: even if Mathews applies, the balancing weighs against a new hearing because the incremental value of relitigation is slight and the hearing would impose real burdens (disclosure, witness safety, resource cost)	Court: Even under Mathews, the probable value of relitigation is too small to require the hearing; Monsanto and precedent control
Whether a defendant may challenge traceability of assets to alleged crime at a §853(e)(1) hearing	Kaley: they sought to challenge primarily the indictment, not traceability (but courts generally permit traceability challenges)	U.S.: traceability challenges are permissible and routinely addressed; distinction between traceability and indictment validity is important	Court: Lower courts correctly allow contesting traceability, but not relitigation of grand jury probable cause for the crimes charged
Whether allowing judicial relitigation would create harmful legal inconsistencies	Kaley: judicial hearing would just test the government’s showing and protect rights without necessarily contradicting the grand jury	U.S.: relitigation risks conflicting findings (judge vs grand jury), undermining grand jury role and incentivizing premature disclosure or strategic prosecutorial choices	Court: Such conflict and attendant harms counseled against recognizing a right to relitigate grand jury findings

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989) (approved pretrial asset restraints under §853(e) where probable cause exists that property will be forfeitable)
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) (defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to spend another person’s money to hire counsel; post-conviction forfeiture may bar use of proceeds to pay attorneys)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (an indictment by a properly constituted grand jury conclusively determines probable cause to prosecute)
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (grand jury proceedings may proceed on the prosecutor’s one-sided presentation; challenges to grand jury evidence reliability are generally not entertained)
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956) (court may not look into and revise the judgment of the grand jury on sufficiency of evidence)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (established three‑part balancing test for determining what process is due)
United States v. Gonzalez‑Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (holding that wrongful deprivation of counsel of choice is structural error)