At this point, assume that you've decided that life in a small river town isn't for you, and you've taken a paralegal position with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minneapolis.Imagine your surprise when Jimmy John Hunter's case appears on your desk! Since you don't have any conflicts with the case, you are excited to see what's happened since your time in Winona with Mr. Hunter's eagle taking case.

You read through the file and learn that an action has been brought against Jimmy John Hunter for violating 16 U.S.C. Section 668, that all administrative remedies have been exhausted and now the case is pending in federal court. Mr. Hunter is raising the defense that he didn't "knowingly, or with wanton disregard for the consequences of his act take" a bald eagle.Mr. Hunter has always maintained that he didn't realize he was shooting a bald eagle and that the whole thing was an accident.

The Assistant U.S. attorney that you work for has asked you to research federal case law to determine whether mistaking a bald eagle for a different bird is a valid defense under the "knowingly" provision of 16 U.S.C. Section 668.

The AUSA tells you that your search should include all federal case law, not just the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. She just needs one case if you can find it for her.

Once you finish your research, prepare a short memo with your findings. The memo does not need to be in complete internal memo format; it should be a quick IRAC of the above issue. It should not exceed two pages and should be in double-spaced memo format, just a quick IRAC of the above issue. It should not exceed two pages

MEMORANDUM

TO: Assistant U.S. Attorney

FROM: Paralegal

DATE: March 27, 2024

RE: Hunter Case - "Knowingly" Provision of 16 U.S.C. 668

ISSUE

Whether mistaking a bald eagle for another bird is a valid defense under the "knowingly" requirement of 16 U.S.C. 668, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). RULE

Whoever,....shall "knowingly" or "with wanton disregard for the consequences of his act take...any bald eagle... shall be fined not more than $ 5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year. (16 U.S.C. 668(a).

ANALYSIS

According to federal case law, mistaking a bald eagle for another bird may not be an adequate defense under the BGEPA's "knowingly" requirement. While knowledge of the sort of bird is not essential, there is a responsibility to behave with caution. In United States v. Zak, 486 F.Supp.2nd (2007) the court determined that the "knowingly" requirement does not require strict responsibility, but that the defendant must act with knowledge or reckless disregard for the consequences. Despite the defendant's claim that he had no idea he was shooting a bald eagle, the court determined that his admissions were sufficient for conviction.

CONCLUSION

Mistaking a bald eagle for another bird is unlikely to constitute a comprehensive defense under the BGEPA's "knowingly" provision. The defendant has an obligation to behave with reasonable care, and ignorance of the individual bird species may not be sufficient to avoid punishment. Recommendation

Further research into specific cases using mistaken identity defenses under the BGEPA may be valuable. Additionally, looking into the exact details of Mr. Hunter's activities, such as the time of day, weather conditions, and the sort of bird he thought he was shooting, could help determine the strength of the government's case.