Substantive Criminal Law
The Case Brief of the United States
V
Sixty Acres in Etowah County
U.S. v. Sixty Acres in Etowah County, 930 F.2d 857 (11th Cir. 1991)
Parties:
The United States the plaintiff (appellant), versus the defendant (appellees) sixty Acres in Etowah County, Evelyn Charlene Ellis
Facts
The FBI, Etowah County Narcotics Task Force, and Alabaman Bureau of investigations conducted a bust into the home of Hubert Owen Ellis, whereby the property was owned by his wife Evelyn Ellis, who in this case was the claimant. The sheriff’s deputy was provided by Phillip Tarvin, who was an informant for the Etowah County Narcotics Task Force with a list of people that he had drug dealings with before. Within the record, there was Ellis, and that was when the force and the Sherriff decided to conduct a bust against him. A few days later, Tarvin contacted Ellis and made plans to purchase some marijuana from him. On the day of the purchase, Travin wore a wire while he dealt with Ellis. Travis followed Ellis to the part of the house where he retrieved some bags and admitted that there were three pounds worth of pot. Travis asked if Ellis would taste the marijuana, which was a signal to the force listing on the other side. Mr. Ellis was able to discern the coming of the force, and he ended up fleeing. He did try to push the drugs to Travin, who refused. Even though he was not arrested on that day, there was a ton of drugs found within the house. When the wife was asked if she had seen her husband, she did claim that he had been there a few minutes ago.
Later on, upon his arrest, he was found guilty of the crimes of possession of drugs and intent to distribute. His wife, Evelynn, was afraid of him as he had been a convicted felon who had murdered his first wife. A per the civil law, the government had to forfeiture any real property which was used to facilitate or commit any illegal actions of selling drugs. It was only exempted in the case that the owner did not know of the activities and was not part of it.
Prior Proceedings
Hubert Owen Ellis was arrested, and he pled guilty on accounts of possession and intention to distribute controlled substance scheduled 1. He was sentenced to an incarceration facility after the district court of the United States found him guilty.
Issue presented
The question here was due to the fear of persecution by the wife, was it sufficient to evidence that she lacked the consent of the illegal activities happening in her home? It was no doubt that she was afraid of her husband, but was that enough reason to claim the lack of knowledge of the activities?
Arguments presented
Evelyn claimed that her husband induced fear on her, and due to that, she did not report his activities ton the authority. The fear and anxiety caused by her husband made her maintain a code of silence.
Holding/Rule of Law
There was evidence that, indeed, Ellis induces the feelings of fear on his wife. Even then, that did not necessarily qualify as a reason to avoid consent on the activities happening within her property. In as much the evidence did show that she had a fear of persecution, it was not enough to exempt her from the forfeiture. Her fear of abuse did not fit in as duress, which says that she was accountable for consenting for him to carry out the illegal activities.
Saint Leo Core Values Displayed
A core value within Saint Leo is the responsibility, which is something that Evelyn lacked. She had the responsibility of reporting her husband due to his illegal actions, but she chose to stay silent.
Rationale
Within the views of the court, one only appears to be in duress if they are in danger of any harm. For the case of Evelyn, she only had a fear of her husband hence no duress. Nothing showed that Mr. Ellis posed a threat or harm to her at the time, so she would have chosen to report it.
Conclusion
Evidence showed that she would have chosen to run away and report the actions of her husband, but she did not. Hence, the ruling stands that the property has to face forfeiture.