Decreasing in numbers Species Action of 1973 (ESA), 16 U. T. C. § 1532(19) (2006). - " The term 'take' means to perturb, harm, pursue, hunt, capture, wound, destroy, trap, catch, or gather, or to make an effort to engage in any such conduct. " § 1538 (a)(1)(B)
- " it truly is unlawful for virtually any person controlled by the jurisdiction of the United States to.... take any such species inside the United States or the territorial marine of the Combined State. " " Knowingly"
United States sixth is v. McKittrick, 142 F. three dimensional 1170, 1177 (9th Cir. 1998). -- In 1978, Our elected representatives changed the wording of section 14 to reduce the conventional for criminal violations coming from 'willfully' to 'knowingly. ' - It did this to make felony violations of the act a general rather than a specific intent crime. - As these cases and the legislative history indicate, section 11 needs only that McKittrick knew he was firing an animal, and the animal turned into a safeguarded gray wolf. United States v. Billie, 667 F. Supp. 1485, 1492 (S. M. Fla. 1987) - the phrase " knowingly” means " that the take action was done voluntarily and intentionally rather than because of problem or incident. ”
United States v. Billie, 667 Farreneheit. Supp. 1485, 1493 (S. D. Fla. 1987)
-- Accordingly, the federal government need confirm only the fact that defendant acted with standard intent if he shot the dog in question. -- The charte under which Billie continues to be charged need the Government to prove this individual acted certainly not " willfully” but " knowingly. ” The 11th Circuit pattern jury instructions specifically distinguish " knowingly” from " willfully, ” which is understood to be " under your own accord and specially, with the particular intent to make a move the law forbids. ” The court has held the Act to require simply general intention. Specific intention of violate the law, therefore , is usually not an component. United States v. St . Onge, 676 Farrenheit. Supp. 1044, 1045 (D. Mont. 1988)
- The problem in this case is actually the government must prove that defendant knew having been shooting a grizzly bear at the time he pulled the trigger,...