US v. Wallen, No. 16-30033 (10-25-17) (Fisher
w/O’Scannlain, Friedland).
This is not a license for any belief. A good faith subjective belief can still be unreasonable. Upon retrial, the court can consider acts that would show it was unreasonable to believe the bears posed a danger.
The 9th lastly refused to grant a jury trial because the judge had sat as a trier of fact.
This is a case about
the three grizzly bears, and their being shot by the defendant. The 9th
vacated the conviction under the Endangered Species Act because the magistrate
judge, at the bench trial, used the wrong standard for self-defense. The
9th holds that the “good faith belief” defense for a 16 U.S.C. § 1540
prosecution is “subjective” and not “objective.” It is satisfied when “a
defendant actually, even if unreasonably, believes his actions are necessary to
protect himself or others from perceived danger from a grizzly bear.”
The case arose when
three grizzly bear cubs were seen around homes in Ferndale, Montana (bear
country). The cubs were human food conditioned, liked food like chicken feed,
and were not afraid of approaching humans to get food. The cubs killed a
number of the defendant’s chickens. The bears then came back, and scared
the family. The defendant chased them away with his truck. Later, when
the bears returned again, the defendant shot them. A neighbor said at no
point did the bears appear to behave aggressively to him or humans. The
defendant never called authorities. He also gave contradictory stories
about the bears.
A magistrate court
tried and convicted the defendant. The court denied his request for a
jury trial, and used an objective standard for self-defense. The sentence
was five years probation (sixty days at a halfway house), and $15,000 in
restitution.
On appeal, the 9th
quickly disposed of the jury argument. The maximum penalty of imprisonment was
six months, and does not get a jury trial because it is a petty. Lewis v. US, 518 US 322 (1996). The
other consequences, such as probation and restitution, were not sufficiently
severe to warrant a jury.
The 9th did find that
the “good faith” self-defense required a subjective standard. The defendant can
argue that he had a good faith belief that the bear cubs threatened him or his
family. The 9th examined the objective standard in other offenses, and
the special good faith in this defense, added by Congress in 1978 after an elderly
couple shot a bear they said threatened them.
This is not a license for any belief. A good faith subjective belief can still be unreasonable. Upon retrial, the court can consider acts that would show it was unreasonable to believe the bears posed a danger.
The 9th lastly refused to grant a jury trial because the judge had sat as a trier of fact.
Congrats to John Rhodes, AFPD, D.
Montana (Missoula).
The decision is here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/25/16-30033.pdf
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home