U.S Versus Sixty Acres in Etowah County
The United States (Plaintiff)v.Sixty Acres located in Etowah County (Defendant)Parties:The United States as the plaintiff v. Sixty Acres located in Etowah County, Defendant (Leagle.com, 2015).
Facts:Mrs. Ellis lived with her husband Mr. Ellis in her residence that was located on her sixty-acre piece of land in Etowah County, Alabama. On the night of January 31, 1989, Mr. Ellis was trying to sell marijuana to an informant who was undercover just outside Mrs. Ellis house when law enforcement officers interrupted the transaction upon receiving a radio signal from the wired informant (Leagle.com, 2015).
Mr. Ellis ran away leaving a trail of the drug behind him. At the time of the attempted sale, Mrs. Ellis was in the house sleeping and unaware of the events happening outside her house until the law officers entered the house with a search warrant.A resulting search of the house by the law enforcement officers did not uncover any drugs or items that can be associated with drugs. The United States gave no evidence of drug-related activities that were carried out on the premises other than that conducted a short distance from the residence. On other hand, Mrs. Ellis had no idea of the marijuana transaction and did not expect it before or at the time it happened. However, the court found that Mrs. Ellis knew about Mr. Ellis’ drug-related activities carried out from or on her premises for a certain period of time up to January 31 thus leading to the forfeiture proceeding. When interviewed by the main witness for United Sates, Mrs. Ellis denies knowledge of Mr. Ellis’ drug dealings but says that she lived in fear of being beaten by the husband (Leagle.com, 2015).
Prior Proceedings:This case was presented to the United States District Court in Alabama (CourtListener, 2015). The court, following the findings of the fact and conclusion of law which are contained in the memorandum of opinion, ordered the forfeiture of 60 acres premise in Etowah County belonging to Evelyn Charlene Ellis. In response to a post-trial motion filed by Mrs. Ellis, the court reopened the case with the aim of reconsidering the evidence and receiving other evidence that support the question of whether or not the claimant consented to the husband’s drug-related activities carried out on her property (CourtListener, 2015).
Objectives of the Parties:In her defense against the forfeiture of her property, Mrs. Ellis argues that she did not have the knowledge of what was happening on her property. Also, she argues that if by any means was aware of what was happening then her knowledge was not actual but constructive, and this is not the knowledge that the law applies (Leagle.com, 2015).In the pre-trial order, the United States says that the claimant was aware of her husband’s dealing and/or consented those activities. Mrs. Ellis is against those accusations and is left with the burden of proving her innocence.
Rule of Law
The court respectfully disagreed with …
