Replies

"even though he has been found not guilty of the criminal charge related to its original confiscation."

I say that neither you nor I know this.

How do you know that he (Puckett) wasn't charged and convicted last June with "conspiracy to grow marijuana" (or some such criminal charge)? In return for a plea bargain naming his co-conspirators (Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher), Puckett was given a suspended sentence.

Plausible? Of course. But we don't know, do we? So stop it with the "he's never been charged" wailing.

How do you know that he (Puckett) wasn't charged and convicted last June with "conspiracy to grow marijuana" (or some such criminal charge)? In return for a plea bargain naming his co-conspirators (Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher), Puckett was given a suspended sentence. Plausible? Of course. But we don't know, do we? So stop it with the "he's never been charged" wailing.

Can't prove a negative, rp. It's reasonable to assume that this article would have mentioned it if there were another criminal charge involved outside the one for which he was found not guilty. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Until then, stop impugning this man's character with off-the-wall, baseless accusations.

"I say that neither you nor I know this."

" a jury... found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana..." The article gives a current date. The article explains the situation, in depth, and makes no reference to any other PENDING criminal action.

Maybe you don't know, but the rest of us do. I can say factually (it is in the first line, if you have read it) that there is no criminal action being taken. I assume the writer would state it, if there were charges!!!
Further, a search of county records show no criminal charges pending, or any sentence appended to the man..

Again, you are stating biased opinions, without basis in fact... and certainly not worthy of honest debate! But then, I guess that is your modus operandi!!!

The State's seizure and subsequent forfeiture of Puckett's property arose from the discovery of marijuana interspersed with a corn crop on his property. "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."

Robert, did you even read the darned article? The author said that Ronnie Pucket was found "innocent" by a jury. That's what uneducated newspaper writers say when they mean "not guilty."

He didn't plead to anything. That's your guess, but it's a bad one because prosecutors just wouldn't do that and the court wouldn't allow it even if the prosecutor would go along. Think about it. Why would a prosecutor agree to sever charges and let the Defendant go to a jury trial on a simple possession charge while leaving open other more serious charges? They wouldn't do that because it means more work for them. They don't plead a case unless they can resolve all the issues, and courts don't tend to allow charges arising out of the same event to be handled separately because it's inefficient. Why should all the witnesses be called in for two trials?

There is no reason to believe that there is still a pending criminal case. More likley than not, the reporter was just wrong again in writing that Puckett was found "innocent" of "marijuana possession" charges. Whatever charges were filed against Puckett from this incident, they would have all been disposed of at the trial level.

By the way, the cite for the civil forfeiture case is Silver Chevrolet Pickup v. State, 99 S.W.3d 874 (Ct. App., Tex., 2003). I read the case and the marijuana was "interspersed with a corn crop on his property." "There was evidence that the marijuana was carefully cultivated, harvested, and processed in a barn on the property. Parmer County deputy sheriffs discovered the marijuana on October 18, 2001. They physically seized substantial personal property on that day, including some of the marijuana and, with the help of Puckett, burned or plowed under the remainder." Id. at 875. I'd post a link but this is coming from a members only type pay site.

Notice how the property is a party in this case. Often the state actually sues the property in rem without even suing the owner. In my state, the state can do either or both.

Here's an article and comments covering what we've been talking about here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1027596/posts