The double jeopardy claim can be supported by facts in the sense that Falkowsi had entered a plea which was unconditional in nature on November, 1992.The case on October,1992 which stated that the Government had taken action in the property seizure of the illegal marijuana plantation. The civil case was taken up at Fairbanks. Also on the charge of possession of marijuana a criminal case was lodged Anchorage. So Falkowski was tried on the same case both the times and so this was a case of double jeopardy.
The questions before the court were to identify the elements of the criminal offense and the claim that the plaintiff must prove to stay the case. The elements which are stated in the indictment are criminal charges and those in the complaint are civil charges. But the government must prove to prevail The next question was what should be minimum facts which the government must present to obtain a forfeiture. The government needed to prove that the connection between the property and the violation of the laws regarding drug trafficking must be followed. The other question was that what the court must do if the government fails to distinguish the elements of the complaint and the indictment as it will be using the same set of facts to prove the same.
According to the case Falkowski argues that the same offense cannot be used for the civil as well as a criminal procedure. In this case the government had to prove that Falkowski had full knowledge of the use of the property. This will entail for a civil forfeiture. The government needs to prove that the property must be used as a single use and a single purpose. Under the civil forfeiture clause the authorities can take the property from the owner only if found guilty under the law. In this case Falkowski, if found using the property owned by him for the cultivation and the distribution of marijuana will face civil forfeiture of property
Please join StudyMode to read the full document