English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Consider the following scenario: a defendant in a federal criminal case is tried and acquitted in the Middle District of North Carolina.' After her trial, the defendant moves in the trial court under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) ("Rule 41(e)") for the return of certain property2 seized by the government in relation to her prosecution.3 Federal agents seized the property during a portion of the criminal investigation that took place in the Southern District of California. The former defendant, who is a pro se movant residing in the Middle District of North Carolina, claims that the government is not commencing forfeiture proceedings against the item in question and that she is therefore lawfully entitled to it. The prosecutor introduced the property into evidence during trial and the former defendant attempted to suppress it, so the trial court has heard extensive evidence related to the property and the underlying search and seizure. In response to the Rule 41(e) motion, the government contends that it still needs the subject property for a prosecution in the Middle District of North Carolina against another individual.' The trial court looks to the first sentence of Rule 41(e), which notes that a person seeking return of seized property "may move the district court for the district in

Proper Venue for Post-Trial Rule 41(e) Motions to Return Seized Property