The only issue that remains is the asset forfeiture case! The supreme court has agreed to hear it because the party who was found not guilty has not yet gotten his property returned. You seem to think the asset forfeiture is completely separate from the criminal charge.
"You seem to think the asset forfeiture is completely separate from the criminal charge."
It is completely separate from the criminal charge. At least that's the way it is in other states besides Texas. Asset forfeiture is a civil action, not a criminal case. It's filed separately and tried separately.
I don't believe it ought to be that way though because these cases are punitive in nature. It ought to be considered as part of the criminal case, with the heightened burdens of proof required in a criminal case and the same protections against double jeopardy.
"The supreme court has agreed to hear it because the party who was found not guilty has not yet gotten his property returned."What??? Where do you come up with these wild-a$$ed claims. That's the second time you've done that to me. Don't do that any more.
The state didn't make a proper filing. The property has been returned. The state is trying to get it back.
The state filed the petition to the Texas Supreme Court, not Puckett. The Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case despite the fact that Puckett was found not guilty of possession of marijuana.
So, why oh why does the state of Texas think it has claim to that property? Hmmmm?
If the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case, then Puckett retains his property.