What this case is actually about is someone who allegedly defrauded Medicare. The state froze their assets so they could get back the stolen money after trial (it's frozen, not forfeit, so they have to find him guilty).
His lawyer (who is not a public defender, incidentally) argues that he had a lot of assets before the alleged fraud. But the response to that is that is that it's not really fair to let someone defraud Medicare and then declare their assets not subject to a freeze because they've spent all the stolen money. All that really does is incentivize thieves to spend the stolen money first and what good does that rule do? If you have $5,000, steal another $5,000, and then spend $5,000, why can't the state freeze your $5,000 whether you spent the stolen or non-stolen money? Is it really fair to let you hire a high-price lawyer that others could only dream of when the bulk of your funds come from fraud? Why does it matter which money they spent first?
You can find all this and more in the transcript of the oral argument: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcri...
