3 ms·

> "Empyreal bears the burden to show by a preponderance of evidence that it has strictly complied with state medical marijuana laws," Holcomb writes. That’s no

> "Empyreal bears the burden to show by a preponderance of evidence that it has strictly complied with state medical marijuana laws," Holcomb writes. That’s not how “innocent until proven guilty” works. It’s the government’s job to collect evidence to prove the law was broken. Source: I served as a federal juror in the last six months. During voire dire, one juror said something like “well, yes - the defendant has to prove his innocence.” This got us a lecture from the judge: we must assume they’re innocent, and the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

tssva 5y ago
This wasn't a criminal case or even a case asking for return of the funds. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. It was a request for a temporary restraining order to prevent future action by the sheriff's office. The burden of proof for a TRO always falls on the party requesting the TRO.
- thomascgalvin 5y ago
  This is explicitly true, but also morally wrong. There is absolutely no reason the government should be able to take something from you, and then make you prove that they shouldn't have done so.
  - 0x7E3 5y ago
    I agree. However, that is the law currently. I'd love to see it changed but until then I don't see why these people should get an exemption just because they are rich. If I were pulled over with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash I would be expected to prove that it was obtained legally. Unfortunately for the persons involved here the cash was obtained in a manner that is not legal in the United States. To be clear, I think Civil Asset Forfeiture should be abolished and that all recreational drugs should be made legal. However, that is not the case and I don't think these particular drug dealers should get a pass just because they have more money / political clout than other drug dealers.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Yea- agree with it or not, technically this is Civil Asset Forfeiture working as intended (Ie not one of the many many abuses of it.): To make it difficult for drug dealers to continue selling and transporting drugs by seizing proceeds and any property used in those activities, especially in cases where criminal prosecution is impossible or impractical. I'm on board with abolishing it, but this isn't even a case of a laws unjust, unintended consequences. It's a case of business owners gambling on a known risk and losing.
- zackees 5y ago
- jagged-chisel 5y ago
  But that's not how the judge is quoted in the article. If it's really about the TRO, then the proof should be about whether the activities to be restrained actually happened - seems like that's not up for debate. Now, because the sheriff's office isn't filing charges, it's immaterial to the TRO whether Empyreal was within the law.

tssva 5y ago

This wasn't a criminal case or even a case asking for return of the funds. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. It was a request for a temporary restraining order to prevent future action by the sheriff's office. The burden of proof for a TRO always falls on the party requesting the TRO.

thomascgalvin 5y ago
This is explicitly true, but also morally wrong. There is absolutely no reason the government should be able to take something from you, and then make you prove that they shouldn't have done so.
- 0x7E3 5y ago
  I agree. However, that is the law currently. I'd love to see it changed but until then I don't see why these people should get an exemption just because they are rich. If I were pulled over with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash I would be expected to prove that it was obtained legally. Unfortunately for the persons involved here the cash was obtained in a manner that is not legal in the United States. To be clear, I think Civil Asset Forfeiture should be abolished and that all recreational drugs should be made legal. However, that is not the case and I don't think these particular drug dealers should get a pass just because they have more money / political clout than other drug dealers.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Yea- agree with it or not, technically this is Civil Asset Forfeiture working as intended (Ie not one of the many many abuses of it.): To make it difficult for drug dealers to continue selling and transporting drugs by seizing proceeds and any property used in those activities, especially in cases where criminal prosecution is impossible or impractical. I'm on board with abolishing it, but this isn't even a case of a laws unjust, unintended consequences. It's a case of business owners gambling on a known risk and losing.
zackees 5y ago
jagged-chisel 5y ago
But that's not how the judge is quoted in the article. If it's really about the TRO, then the proof should be about whether the activities to be restrained actually happened - seems like that's not up for debate. Now, because the sheriff's office isn't filing charges, it's immaterial to the TRO whether Empyreal was within the law.