[robertpaulsen]

"Like it or not this country is based on the premise that you are innocent until the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty."

In a criminal trial, yes. This wasn't a criminal trial. He wasn't being charged with a crime. His freedom wasn't at stake.

This was a civil asset forfeiture case against the money, not against Mr. Drug Dealer. You kind of get a hint of that by the title of the case: ""United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency".

In civil asset forfeiture cases, all that's needed for a guilt verdict is "preponderance of the evidence".

[Lumper20]

You got it. Thank you. Let the bleeding hearts post elsewhere.

[FreedomCalls]

In civil asset forfeiture cases, all that's needed for a guilt verdict is "preponderance of the evidence".

In this case the government had no evidence that the money was acquired illegeally. None, much less a preponderance.