After the jury heard that Larry had Marijuana, $6,000, and a scale in his home, it might look impossible for Larry to escape a felony charge. Dan Ambrose showed the jury that the money was legitimate, and that the government seized the money with no reason. The jury found him NOT GUILTY of a felony.
The police raided Larry's modular home. They had secured a warrant based upon a lie by a snitch who had to give them three busts to get out of trouble. Unfortunately Larry was number three. The police found two ounces of marijuana in a safe with $6,000 in cash. Near by in the same room they found a postal scale and a box of sandwich bags. The money was still in the bank wraps. The government seized, and forfeited his money. Larry went to post a bond for the money because he only had twenty one days to do so. Upon arriving at the police station the detective told him that it was not necessary to post the money, that he would make a note that Larry was contesting the forfeiture. The police waited two months to issue charges against Larry. They charged him with possession with intent to deliver.
When Larry hired me he told me what the detective had told him. I contacted the detective who laughingly told me that he did not know what Larry was talking about and that the money was forfeited.
When the police took his money Larry went to the bank and got a loan for $6,000. The money was to move his modular home. He tried to tell the police this but they would not listen.
At trial the police admitted that it was their policy to always forfeit money found near any quantity of drugs. They also admitted that they could only forfeit money if the person was charged with possession with the intent to deliver. We were able to place in evidence the new loan papers. The prosecutor kept calling Larry's residence a trailer an and each time she did Larry emphatically corrected her that it was a modular home. I kept emphasizing the injustice of the government stealing Larry's money. The judge kept reminding me that we were here for a criminal case, not a forfeiture hearing. I argued to the jury that Larry was charged with a felony so that the government could keep his money. Clearly this money was from a bank and not from selling drugs. I also told the jury if Larry was a drug dealer wouldn't he have just gone and sold more drugs to get the money that the government took.
The jury found Larry guilty of simple possession. Seven people on the jury wanted to let him go completely. The jury was angry that the government took his money, nobody likes a thief. |
