United States v. Charette

The plain language and legislative history of the Endangered Species Act make clear that permits or other exemptions are affirmative defenses, not elements of the crime itself. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment vacating defendant's conviction for taking a grizzly bear in violation of the ESA. The panel held that the lower court erred in its formulation of the elements of the crime, improperly placing the burden of proving the nonexistence of a permit on the Government. Therefore, the panel rejected defendant's argument because he presented no evidence at trial that he possessed a permit. The panel affirmed the lower court rulings that defendant was not entitled to a jury trial. However, because the lower court erred in applying an objective standard to defendant's self-defense claim, the error was not harmless. View "United States v. Charette" on Justia Law