How to drop a wetland conviction: Court says intent matters

摘要

In a ruling that could handcuff some environmental prosecutors, an appeals court yesterday threw out the conviction of a South Dakota farmer charged with disturbing property within the National Wildlife Refuge System. While farmer Kevin Jay Mast laid irrigation drainage tiles on land covered by a federal wetlands-protecting easement, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that his state of mind should have been taken into account. "Unless Mast knew or should have known that carrying out a drainage project on his own land would disturb [National Wildlife Refuge System] property, his conduct was innocent," Judge Jane Kelly wrote. The 2-1 decision by the appeals court panel rejected the government's argument that strict liability applied to the federal statute. Strict liability is an unforgiving standard, as guilt hinges simply on whether an act was committed. Kelly, an Obama administration appointee, reasoned that the statute Mast was convicted of violating "requires proof of the defendant's negligence." Though the government had evidence of that, Kelly said the trial judge erroneously instructed jurors that strict liability applied.