Skip to comments.
Farmer found innocent of drug charge, now battles to save land
lubbockonline.com ^
| 11.20.03
| P. CHRISTINE SMITH
Posted on 11/23/2003 12:09:30 PM PST by 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.
Pucketts 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 Pucketts 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 Fanchers 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 states 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
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: addiction; assetforfieture; battles; charge; constitutionlist; donutwatch; drug; farmer; found; govwatch; innocent; land; libertarians; now; of; philosophytime; propertyrights; save; texas; to; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-254 next last
To: Lazamataz
I was under the impression from the article that this was a working farm of 320 acres of corn. Well, 310 acres, anyways.
Not a mountainous area consisting of 10 acre to 100 acre non-farming parcels. Growing ten acres of marijuana on a ten acre parcel would be obvious, yes?
Even a 100 acre parcel is only 2000X2000 feet. You could spot 10 acres of marijuana from your front door, for crying out loud.
To: robertpaulsen
I don't believe that the government has the power to take possession and/or dispose of the assets until a guilty verdict has been reached.
Bear in mind that we imprison people "before they're found guilty by a court of law", You are delusional. The courts have ruled that "innocent until proven guilty" applies only to people; if the State thinks your property is guilty, then it's guilty until *you* prove it innocent.
42
posted on
11/23/2003 1:21:00 PM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
(You realize, of course, this means war?" B Bunny)
To: robertpaulsen
OK Robert, you disagree with the jury. That's fine, maybe your even right. But the point his he had his day in court and won. They took their best shot and lost. Now give the guy has stuff back. Otherwise we have no freedom. The government, by definition, is huge and can prosecute someone like this forever, if they are not restrained. Conservatives supposedly support the limitations on unchecked government power provided in our Constitution and Bill or Rights. Even if it occassionally means someone gets off who some people don't think should.
What's the alternative your proposing?
To: robertpaulsen
You make a great case, but I see the case is over:
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.
Was the jury wrong? Should we change to a "Trial by robertpaulsen" system? Well,...as long as we're tinkering with the Constitution.....
44
posted on
11/23/2003 1:22:27 PM PST
by
TankerKC
(Member since before you! I win!)
To: hoot2
"actually; it looks like the ol' guy is takin' the fall for the kid..."Yep. And some fall -- probation and pocket change.
I wonder how much they all took in the year before, and the year before that, and ...
To: Lazamataz
It's happened in my rural area the mj has been found interspersed among legit crops, and no, the property owner didn't plant it, but the property owner has the burden of proving that. You have several hundred acres, auto irrigated, not you don't walk it weeks at a time.
To: robertpaulsen
The man was found "not guilty" you moron.
L
47
posted on
11/23/2003 1:24:11 PM PST
by
Lurker
(Some people say you shouldn't kick a man when he's down. I say there's no better time to do it.)
To: Grut
Wot, you're claiming you're coherent? ;^)Yes. Anybody who can write a message ending with this, is clearly coherent.
That's because our government can do this.
![](http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/pig.gif)
![](http://www.brokennewz.com/images/puppy.jpg)
That's right. We can dress pigs up like soldiers and give Osama Bin Laden a puppy.
Fear us.
48
posted on
11/23/2003 1:24:31 PM PST
by
Lazamataz
(I like my women as I like my coffee: Cold and bitter.)
To: robertpaulsen
It doesn't seem right to me that the state can seize, freeze, or hold private property on the basis of an accusation, no.
IMO, the potential for abuse is too great. Specifically because it gives the state the kind of arbitrary decision making ability which makes a mockery of the ideal of freedom.
Even if a man is found guilty, I'm not sure the government is whithin it's rights in selling his property. And if it does this who is to say where such poceeds should go?
49
posted on
11/23/2003 1:26:34 PM PST
by
Sam Cree
(democrats are herd animals)
To: ellery
"He was found not guilty. The government still hasn't given his property back. You don't have a problem with that?"He was found not guity of possession of marijuana.
I didn't read where the jury found that no marijuana was being grown on his farm, or that no marijuana was found in his barn. Did you?
I believe the government is HOLDING his property until that issue is resolved. No, I don't have a problem with the government HOLDING his property until that issue is resolved.
To: hoot2
You are exactly right. I am a farmer in the same area and you know what is growing on every square foot. Besides some had already been harvested and was in the barn. The local talk is that the retired father is the only one who did not know about the "weeds" in his sons field.
51
posted on
11/23/2003 1:32:27 PM PST
by
slag
To: Oztrich Boy
"then it's guilty until *you* prove it innocent.No, you're wrong. That standard has changed.
To: Oztrich Boy
Bear in mind that we imprison people "before they're found guilty by a court of law", . No we bind them over for trail, and unless they are a immediate risk to commit more crimes or flee they are given bail.
To: Lurker
A$$hole can't read and he's calling
me a moron.
Look, jerkoff, he was found not guilty of possession of marijuana. That's it. That's what keeping his ignorant butt out of jail.
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.
To: robertpaulsen
Do you favor state seizure of assets in the case of other accusations of crimes, or just in drug cases?
55
posted on
11/23/2003 1:41:31 PM PST
by
Sam Cree
(democrats are herd animals)
To: ellery
Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime? Non-drug-user bump
56
posted on
11/23/2003 1:46:52 PM PST
by
Ben Chad
To: robertpaulsen
I don't believe that the government has the power to take possession and/or dispose of the assets until a guilty verdict has been reached.
Oh yes they do. 40% of the people whose assets are seized are never charged with a crime. And they try to seize all your assets 401Ks, checking accounts, everything so that you cannot fight them to get your property back. The property is ususally sold before it even goes to trial.
57
posted on
11/23/2003 1:49:30 PM PST
by
microgood
(They will all die......most of them.)
To: Jack Black; Sam Cree
Call it what you will, they are imprisoned before a trial verdict. Their freedom is taken away without a trial. They are locked up on mere accusations.
Sam Cree was hyperventilating because we seize assets before a person is found guilty. All I was saying is that we do worse than that by locking up suspects and people seem to understand -- even make excuses for it, like you do.
To: ellery
No, I just can't agree. The state shouldn't be able to seize anything, unless, it can be proved that property was purchased with drug money and only a jury should decide this. Any seizures should only be done after a jury trial and the money should never go in to the department that has a vested interest in the arrest. I just got my CCW license and the instructor (a cop) said jokingly, your gun can be taken by the police for any reason so yall buy good, expensive ones. Where is this going to stop? Look at seatbelts. It used to be for safety but it's a money maker now too. What's next? Our cars?
To: robertpaulsen
"I think an official accusation gets it done." As does 10 acres of marijuana plants on one's property and 250 pounds of marijuana in one's barn.
But that shouldn't count because "he didn't know" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
It seems from this dialogue that you agree that if the owner did not know about it, then he shouldn't have his property siezed?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-254 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson