Case Brief Module 3
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Saint Leo University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
321
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by isabella108
Isabella Cardenas Cardona
CRM-321
Substantive Criminal Law
Case Brief
930 F.2d 857
59 USLW 2758
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SIXTY ACRES IN ETOWAH COUNTY, Evelyn Charlene Ellis,
Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
(May 6, 1991)
Parties:
U.S. (Plaintiff) v. Sixty Acres in Etowah County (Defendants)
Facts:
The FBI, Alabama Bureau of Investigation, and Etowah County Narcotics Task Force performed a “buy-bust” operation on a property named Six Acres in Alabama on January 31
st
, 1989. They did this intending to catch Hubert Owen Ellis, who was involved in drug activities. His wife, Evelyn Charlene Ellis, owned the property. An undercover informant named Phillip Tarvin negotiated the purchase of Marijuana with Mr.Ellis, who would later attempt to exchange the drugs with the informant during the operation. Tarvin contacted Ellis at the home and negotiated terms for the purchase of the marijuana. Days later, Tarvin came into the house wearing a listening device. Following a brief conversation, Ellis led Tarvin to the back of his home, where he acquired a garbage bag stating it contained “3 pounds of pot”. Tarvin asked Ellis to try the marijuana, stating code words, leading agents listening on the device to move out. Ellis fled from the back of the house carrying the marijuana with him.
That evening, he was not located, but two bags of the drug were found at the rear of his house. An Etowah
County District Attorney's investigator testified that they saw Mrs.Ellis in her room when they entered the
home. She was then questioned on her husband's whereabouts, and she stated she did not know where he was but was there minutes before a car pulled up and he left. Prior Proceedings:
Mr. Ellis pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute Schedule I controlled substances on May 4
th
, 1989. On January 5
th
, 1990, the district court issued a forfeiture order on the Sixty Acres in Etowah County, Alabama, to the U.S. under 21 U.S.C. Sec.881 based on the property’s alleged use to facilitate drug-related offenses. Subsequently, the property owner, Mrs. Ellis, contested the decision. In response to her motion, the district court vacated the forfeiture order. It
opened the case back up to consider evidence related to her lack of consent to her husband’s drug
activities. After a bench trial on this issue, the district court dismissed the complaint for forfeiture
and granted Mrs. Ellis’s claim to the property. This led to the government’s appeal of the district court’s decision.
Issues Presented or Questions of Law:
Did Mrs. Ellis consent to her husband's illegal drug activity, and if so, to what extent?
Is Mrs. Ellis protected under the “innocent owner” provision?
Under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(7), does the evidence presented to show that the forfeited property was used to facilitate drug-related offenses?
Did the district court correctly interpret and apply the law in vacating the original forfeiture order?
Does Mrs. Ellis's position constitute within the legal framework of duress, thus excusing her from the consequences of consent?
Arguments or Objectives of the Parties:
United States argues Evelyn Ellis consented to her husband’s illegal drug activities. Therefore, the property was used to commit or facilitate drug offenses justifying the forfeiture. They also argued the “innocent owner” provision does not apply in Mrs. Ellis’s case. Appellee Mrs. Ellis argued she did not consent to her husband’s illegal drug activities due to fear and coercion, so the property should not be subject to forfeiture as it was not knowingly used to facilitate drug offenses. She claims the “innocent provisions claim should be applicable in her case since the acts were committed “without her knowledge”.
Holding/Rule of Law:
The court applied 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(7), stating property in relation to drug offenses can be forfeited, but an innocent owner needs to prove they didn’t know or consent to protect themselves. The court also emphasized fear may not excuse criminal behavior unless an immediate threat is present and cannot be reasonably avoided.
Saint Leo Core Values Displayed:
Mrs. Ellis did not uphold integrity in this case when stating she had no knowledge, involvement, or consent in the illegal drug activities being done by her husband.
Rationale:
The court decided Mrs. Ellis could not avoid forfeiture of her property because she had knowledge of her husband’s drug activities and did not take reasonable steps to stop the activities. According to the court, her “fear” did not excuse her involvement. In this case, Mrs. Ellis did not meet the requirement of not consenting or having knowledge to prevent her property
from being taken from her. Conclusion:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The court ruled in favor of the United States, deciding Mrs. Ellis did consent to her husband’s illegal drug activities. As a result, the forfeiture of the Sixty Acres in Etowah County, Alabama, was upheld, and Mrs. Ellis could not retain ownership of the property.