Today's decision in United States v. Wallen, --- F.3d ---, No. 16-30033 (9th Cir. 2017) is full of interesting items.
The defendant shot and killed three grizzly cubs on his property. He was charged with violating the Endangered
Species Act. He was convicted after trial before a magistrate judge (over his objection and request for a jury).
On appeal, the Court rejected the defendant's claim that he was entitled to a jury. The Court concluded his crime qualified as a petty offense -- for which there is no right to a jury trial -- because the maximum penalty is 6 months. And the additional potential penalties (such as probation and restitution) were not "so severe as to indicate that the legislature considered the
offense serious."
The Court further determined that, although the crime did not fit within the petty offense definition in 18 U.S.C. 19, "the
federal statutory definition of 'petty offense' under § 19
holds no 'talismanic significance' when determining a
defendant’s right to a jury trial."
After addressing the jury issue, the Court turned to whether the “good faith
belief” defense for a prosecution under 16 U.S.C. § 1540 is
governed by a subjective, rather than an objective, standard,
and 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 Court agreed with the defendant that his subjective belief controlled. Accordingly, because the district court applied an objective standard, and
the error was not harmless, the Court vacated the conviction
and remanded for a new trial. In doing so, however, it explained:
We emphasize that, although the ultimate question is whether a defendant held a subjective good faith belief, the objective reasonableness (or unreasonableness) of a claimed belief bears directly on whether that belief was held in good faith.
***
In sum, we hold the “good faith belief” defense under § 1540(b)(3) is available to defendants who, in good faith, subjectively believe they or others are in danger. A factfinder “is not precluded from considering the reasonableness” of this belief “in weighing the credibility of the claim,” but that factfinder “may not substitute its own determination of objective reasonableness . . . [for] what the defendant subjectively believed.” This means that traditional aspects of a self-defense claim – such as the immediacy of the threat, whether the defendant provoked the conflict or the amount of force used, may be considered for the purpose of determining whether a claimed belief was held in good faith. The standard is subjective, but the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s claimed belief is relevant to the factfinder’s assessment of the sincerity of that claim.
Finally, here is a good quote for us appellate people: "The 'basic misconception of an essential element of the crime charged' generally 'compels reversal of the conviction,' whether handed down by a judge or jury."
