Farmer found innocent of drug charge, now battles to save land

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[freepatriot32]

FARWELL – After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana, a charge that came after police found an estimated 250 pounds of the drug on his Lazbuddie farm in October 2001.

His fight continues, however, to keep the state from seizing his land.

Puckett was arrested on June 14, 2002, after an investigation into the cultivation of marijuana plants on about 10 acres of cornfield. Police also seized marijuana from a barn on the property.

Puckett’s then-74-year-old father, William Vernon Puckett, was arrested during a raid on the property on Oct. 18, 2001. He later entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to a 10-year probated sentence and a $5,000 fine.

During the three-day trial this week, the elder Puckett testified that his son had no knowledge of the marijuana-growing operation, said Dan Hurley, Ronnie Puckett’s attorney.

At the time, Ronnie Puckett was grieving the death of his wife and was not spending much time in his fields, Hurley said.

Two outstanding arrest warrants remain for individuals allegedly involved in the marijuana operation.

Johnny Actkinson, 287th District Attorney, confirmed that Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher, are wanted on marijuana possession charges.

Kathy Fancher, Bill Fancher’s wife, testified against Ronnie Puckett as part of an immunity deal.

In a June 2002 forfeiture hearing in Parmer County, Ronnie Puckett lost his 320-acre farm to the state. The property was valued at approximately $484,000. The state can move to seize property if it is used for illegal drug purposes, Hurley said.

Puckett, however, appealed the ruling to the Seventh District Court of Appeals in Amarillo and won back control of the property because the state did not make a proper filing for seizure, Hurley said.

At the state’s request, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the property forfeiture case, Hurley said.

Still, Hurley said, Ronnie Puckett looks forward to moving on with his life now that the threat of criminal prosecution is behind him.

‘‘He is incredibly relieved and happy,’’ Hurley said.

p.christine.smith@lubbockonline.com t 766-8754

[coloradan]

... and the sun assists in growing the contraband. So that must be forfeit as well. And the moon enables nighttime harvest. Forfeit. This ad paid for by the Partnership For A Drug-Free Solar System.

[robertpaulsen]

He starts posting right around this time (9:30am), so check your threat radar.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

He starts posting right around this time (9:30am), so check your threat radar.

I see. So he's located in NORML'S west coast headquarters?

P.S. Wonder why the mods are letting him stay this time?

[robertpaulsen]

"If the threat of prosecution is behind him, it means that no more charges will be forthcoming."

Yes. Obviously.

It's been two years. He was just recently found not guilty of possession of marijuana. But, according to the article, "In a June 2002 forfeiture hearing in Parmer County, Ronnie Puckett lost his 320-acre farm to the state".

This must have resulted from some other charge that they haven't told us about.

[tacticalogic]

Just like I "probably owns no barns, I doubt he has more than an acre".

When you make statements to the effect that you should be able to see marijuana plants growing anywhere on a 320 acre farm from the house, I'd consider those statements a not unlikely assesment.

[robertpaulsen]

"How would you suggest that the owner establish the innocence of "the property" in this case?"

I don't know. That's three-year-old law. It's not the current federal law.

Besides, he was charged under Texas law, not federal law. Certainly you don't object to the states writing their own asset forfeiture laws, do you?

[tacticalogic]

I don't know. That's three-year-old law. It's not the current federal law.

Then what relevance does it have to the subject at hand in the first place?

Besides, he was charged under Texas law, not federal law. Certainly you don't object to the states writing their own asset forfeiture laws, do you?

If they don't violate protected Constitutional rights, no. Do you? Does your support of state's rights extend beyond their ability to enact laws that you agree with?

[robertpaulsen]

Well, mtbopfuyn agrees with me in post #74.

But, I never said 320 acres. Re-read my post #41. I said 100 acres, which is only 2000ft by 2000ft.

[robertpaulsen]

"P.S. Wonder why the mods are letting him stay this time?"

Religious freedom?

I seem to recall from the MrLeRoy FR home page that he resides in Illinois.

[jmc813]

They invite me when they're short of cash.

We call you guys "fish".

[tacticalogic]

So you did. And implied that seeing it on 320 acres wouldn't be any different. I also see the implication that there was 10 acres of marijuana. The article states that they found it growing in a 10-acre corn field. Care to explain the logic by which an unspecified amount of marijuana found growing in a 10 acre corn field translates to "10 acres of marijuana"?

[68 grunt]

Man, Lurker, you still got that wonderful way with words! Yeah, what you said!

[TKDietz]

"Nowhere did I read where a jury found that marijuana wasn't growing on 10 acres of his land or that there was 250 pounds of marijuana in his barn. Absent that finding, it's adios farm."

Nowhere did I read that there were 10 acres of marijuana growing and 250 pounds of it in his barn. Read the article again. The police said they found an "estimated" 250 pounds of marijuana. There was marijuana growing in ten acres of cornfield and some in the barn. It was June.

Being as this happened in June, they probably found over two hundred immature plants growing and just estimated that each plant would produce a pound. That's pretty much the standard measure law enforcement uses, and of course, it's not accurate. If it was marijuana grown from seed, about half the crop would turn out male and would be cut out as soon as its sex showed as there is no market for male plants and the growers like to pull the males before they fertilize the females as seedless buds are much more potent and valuable. Not only that, but as I understand from testimony I've heard, not all female plants will produce the same if they make it at all. Bugs, deer, rabbits, thieves and disease all cause losses in marijuana crops. Not every plant is going to make it and produce a pound or more of final product.

Anyway, whether the 250 pound figure was bogus or not, your characterization of the evidence is not accurate. It could be that only a couple of male plants that had showed their sex early were drying in the loft of the barn. Or maybe there was just a half smoked joint in the barn. You can't tell from this article. And the pot growing in the fields could have been very well hidden. It wouldn't seem like it would be that hard to hide a couple of hundred pot plants scattered about in ten acres of corn.

[robertpaulsen]

"The article states that they found it growing in a 10-acre corn field."

tacticalogic, I’m trying real hard to be the Shepherd here and not comment on your reading skills.

The article stated, "... after an investigation into the cultivation of marijuana plants on about 10 acres of cornfield", not "in" a 10-acre cornfield.

What's on the other 310 acres?

Maybe to clarify, they should have said, "... after an investigation into the cultivation of marijuana plants on about 10 acres of a 320 acre cornfield".

[robertpaulsen]

"There was marijuana growing in ten acres of cornfield and some in the barn."

Well, let's agree that there was a cornfield of 320 acres. And that marijuana was growing in ten acres of that 320 acres.

I'll concede that the article wasn't clear on exactly how much of that 10 acres was marijuana and how much was corn. I assumed all of that 10 acres was marijuana, since the chemicals used to control weeds in cornfields would also kill the marijuana. Hard, if not impossible, to mix the two.

But, maybe he didn't use chemicals in that section for that very reason. Fine. Maybe there was less than ten acres of actual marijuana plants.

But when they say an estimated 250 pounds, I assume they mean an estimated 250 pounds. Where do you get "some" from that, or why do you say it was "bogus"? Wishful thinking, or did you read something the rest of us didn't?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I seem to recall from the MrLeRoy FR home page that he resides in Illinois.

He also claims never to have used drugs of any sort.

[TKDietz]

"I don't live in the city.
Yes, corn grows to 6 to 8 feet high.

Marijuana grows to 10 to 12 feet high. Think you could spot that from your front door?"

I'm from a part of the country where quite a bit of pot is grown and I have represented more than a couple of people accused of growing it. There are strains of marijuana that grow less than two feet tall. Most of the more powerful varieties only grow to around four feet high. Some varieties of "sativa," as opposed to "indica," will grow over twenty feet. That's the Mexican type of lower quality pot and that's how tall they get by the time they are ready to harvest. These plants were found in June. They'd be a lot taller by November or December when they were ready to harvest. They would not even have started flowering yet and would have been much shorter than their final hieght at the time that they were found.

So, it is not true that all marijuana grows to 10 or 12 feet tall. It is quite likely that these plants were even shorter than the corn.

[tacticalogic]

I assumed all of that 10 acres was marijuana, since the chemicals used to control weeds in cornfields would also kill the marijuana. Hard, if not impossible, to mix the two.

I'm not a farmer, but I do live in farm country and am somewhat familiar with the chemicals and methods used, and I don't find your conclusion consistent with the information I have. Can you provide a source to back up that assertion?

[tacticalogic]

I’m trying real hard to be the Shepherd here and not comment on your reading skills.

Comment away. You've already had to admit that the "10 acres of marijuana" assertion is speculative. Is the problem with my reading skills that I recognize "spin" when I see it?

[TKDietz]

Robert:

Look, people grow pot mixed in with corn all the time. That's one of the ways people try to hide it. I've seen case after case where pot has been found growing in cornfields.

Think about it, if he was growing ten acres of pot, there would be a lot more than 250 pounds. Oh and look at this:

"FARWELL –– After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana, a charge that came after police found an estimated 250 pounds of the drug on his Lazbuddie farm in October 2001.

His fight continues, however, to keep the state from seizing his land.

Puckett was arrested on June 14, 2002, after an investigation into the cultivation of marijuana plants on about 10 acres of cornfield. Police also seized marijuana from a barn on the property."

That's straight from the article. Nowhere does it say that they found more than an estimated 250 pounds of marijuana, total. It does not say that they found 10 acres of pot plants and another 250 pounds in the barn. There wasn't a ten acre "pot field." There was a ten acre cornfield that had pot in it, on it, however you want to say it. It wouldn't have been a cornfield if it was all pot.

The reason I say that the "estimated" number might be bogus is because the fact of the matter is that law enforcement uses bogus numbers all the time when they report their "big scores." They almost always over-value the drugs they have seized and they almost always say that every plant they find will yield a pound, no matter how small, whether it's male, female or sex undetermined, no matter the variety of marijuana or whether it's being grown indoors or outdoors. That's why the two hundred dollars worth of pot some kid might have growing in his closet under shop lights will often be reported in the newspaper as being worth $20,000.00 or some other rediculous made-up figure. This is standard police practice. I see it all the time.