Florida Men Convicted of “Maritime Theft” Over Decision to Free Sharks

It is quite extraordinary for a federal judge to openly criticize the government’s decision to prosecute a defendant, especially in a decision upholding that defendant’s conviction. Yet that is what recently happened in the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, where a three-judge panel affirmed the convictions of two men charged with theft under federal maritime law. This unusual case began when the two men actually tried to intervene and stop what they thought was an illegal poaching operation. Unfortunately, they were mistaken and ended up paying a significant legal price for their actions.

Judges Critical of Assistant United States Attorney’s Decision to Prosecute

The defendants in this case, United States v. Moore, worked on a privately owned boat that offered shark sightseeing tours out of Jupiter, Florida. One day, a family hired the boat to take them out for snorkeling. During the trip, the defendants noticed a fishing line attached to a buoy. There were sharks caught on the line. The defendants assumed this was an illegal fishing line used by poachers, so they cut the sharks loose and took the line into their boat.

It turns out the fishing line was placed there legally by a local seafood distributor, who was working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct shark research in the area. The defendants, still unaware of this fact, reported what they had done to a Florida Fish and Wildlife officer. The officer asked the defendants to retain the fishing lines while he conducted an investigation. The dockmaster at the local marina, however, told his staff to throw the lines in the dumpster, which they did.

In spite of the defendant’s good-faith mistake, the United States Attorney’s office decided to convene a grand jury, which indicted both men for “theft of property within special maritime jurisdiction,” a federal crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison. A jury found the defendants guilty, and the trial court sentenced both men to one year of probation.

On appeal, the defendants challenged the trial judge’s decision not to issue a jury instruction requested by the defense. The 11th Circuit held the trial judge committed no legal error and affirmed the jury’s verdict. That said, two of the judges on the appellate panel signed a separate opinion attacking the United States Attorney’s decision to bring this case in the first place. Judge Barbara Lagoa, joined by Judge Britt Grant, noted these defendants were now “convicted felons” because they “violated a statute that no reasonable person would understand to prohibit the conduct they engaged in.” Lagoa noted that this matter could have been resolved with a civil fine, yet the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of the case “doubled down” on his decision to prosecute. Lagoa noted that while this decision to prosecute was not subject to judicial review, federal prosecutors were “not immune from judicial criticism of their imprudent–albeit lawful–exercises of authority.”

Contact an Orlando Federal Crime Lawyer Today

Cases like this illustrate the lengths federal prosecutors will go to in pursuing suspected criminal activity, even when there is not necessarily any substantial public interest at risk. An experienced Orlando federal crime lawyer can advise and represent you in these matters. Call the Joshi Law Firm, PA, today at 844-GO-JOSHI or contact us online to schedule a free initial consultation.

Source:

media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202310579.pdf