IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv736-WKW

)

SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN )

HUNDRED ($74,700) DOLLARS IN )

UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )

)

DEFENDANT. )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S TRIAL BRIEF

The United States of America (United States), by and through

Leura G. Canary, United States Attorney for the Middle District of

Alabama, and John T. Harmon, Assistant United States Attorney,

hereby submits the United States of America's Trial Brief:

I. BURDEN OF PROOF

The government’s burden of proof in forfeiture cases is the

same as all civil cases: preponderance of the evidence. See 18

U.S.C. § 983 (c)(1).

Under CAFRA, with respect to a property interest in existence

at the time the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture took

place, an “innocent owner” is an owner who did not know of the

illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture or an owner who, upon

learning of this illegal conduct did all that could reasonable be

expected under the circumstances to terminate such illegal use.

See 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).

In this case, the burden of proof is upon the United States by

a preponderance of the evidence to show that the property at issue

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 33 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
is subject to forfeiture. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(c). However, the

claimant has the burden of establishing the innocent owner defense

should such a defense be asserted. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(d).

II. LAW

A. Forfeiture of Defendant Cash.

That currency is substantially connected with an illegal

drug exchange may be established by either direct or circumstantial

evidence. Even without direct evidence, however, cash has

consistently been found forfeitable as exchange money or proceeds

when it is discovered in large amounts along with other indicia of

related illegal activity, such as drugs. United States v.

$93,685.61 in U.S. Currency, 730 F.2d 571, 572 (9 Cir. 1984) cert. th

denied sub nom., Willis v. United States, 469 U.S. 831 (1984).

Circumstantial evidence of drug transactions is sufficient to

support the establishment of probable cause in a forfeiture

proceeding. Id., citing United States v. $364,960.00 in United

States Currency, 661 F.2d 319, 324-325 (5 Cir. 1981). The United th

States need not trace the money or property to specific

transactions. United States v. $41,305.00 in United States

Currency, 802 F.2d 1339, 1343 (11 Cir. 1986); United States v. th

Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand, 762 F.2d 895 (11th

Cir. 1985). See also United States v. One 1987 Mercedes 560 SE, 919

F.2d 327, 331 (5 Cir. 1990). th

To establish a case, the United States must only show that the

Defendant currency was probably derived from illegal drug

transactions. The United States may make such a showing by

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 33 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 2 of 4
Many of these cases are discussing the establishment of the original “probable cause” 1

standard. Of course, the higher “preponderance” standard applies to the United States’ burden in

this case. However, these cases still establish the requirements to meet the United States’ burden

at the higher level. See U.S. v. $22,991.00, More or Less, in U.S. Currency, 227 F.Supp. 1220

(S.D.Ala. 2002) (Dog sniff, quantity of currency, history as drug user/dealer and presence of

drugs sufficient to establish forfeitability by preponderance.)

introducing evidence of narcotics trafficking and income derived

therefrom, and evidence tending to show a lack of legitimate income

sufficient to purchase the property. All that is required is that

a court be able to look at the aggregate of the facts and find

reasonable ground that the property probably was derived from drug

transactions. See United States v. Parcels of Land, 903 F.2d 36

(1 Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 289 (1990). See also st

$41,305.00, 802 F.2d at 1343; Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-Five

Thousand, 762 F.2d at 904.1

B. Innocent Owner.

The claimant, should he assert this defense, has the

burden to establish this defense by a preponderance. See Part I.

above.

A claimant attempting to establish an innocent owner

defense must establish his financial transactions. United States

v. $41,305, 802 F.2d 1339, 1345 (11 Cir. 1986). th

The person who committed the offense cannot be an

innocent owner. United States v. Six Negotiable Checks, 207

F.Supp.2d 677 (E.D.Mich. 2002).

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 33 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 3 of 4
Respectfully submitted this 9 day of October, 2007. th

FOR THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 LEURA G. CANARY

/s/John T. Harmon 

John T. Harmon

Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the United States Attorney

Middle District of Alabama

131 Clayton Street

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

Telephone:(334) 223-7280

Facsimile:(334) 223-7560

E-mail: John.Harmon@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 9, 2007, I electronically

filed the foregoing Trial Brief with the Clerk of the Court using

the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to

the following: Bruce Maddox.

/s/John T. Harmon 

John T. Harmon

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 33 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 4 of 4