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.

,