MT: Denied a Jury Trial, Man found Guilty of "Illegal" Grizzly Killings with a .22

Gun Watch ^ | 8 April, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In this case in Montana, a man, Dan Calvert Wallen, who shot three grizzly bears who were repeatedly raiding his property and killing his chickens, was denied a trial by jury, and convicted by the judge of illegally "taking" an unlawful species.  The penalty for each offense is up to six months in jail and a $25,000 fine.

What is clear to anyone that studies bear problems, is that these were problem bears, and would have to be dealt with sooner or later.   The Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks service had attempted to trap the bears but had failed to do so.

Once bears have become habituated to humans, and associate them with food, they can no longer be trusted.  It is only a matter of time until a hungry bear wonders what that weak, slow, and obviously ineffectual two legged critter might taste like, or needs to be shown its proper place in the pecking order.  Either way results in a serious bear/human conflict.   The essence of the above reality has been put into a motto of wildlife managers: a fed bear is a dead bear.

In the case in Montana, the shooter killed all three bears with a .22 rifle.  From dailyinterlake.com:

Wallen shot the grizzly bears at his home in Ferndale in May 2014. After being denied a request for a trial by jury, Wallen went to trial March 10.

He will be sentenced May 12 in Missoula.

Court documents say Wallen shot three grizzly bears with a .22 rifle on May 27, 2014, but only one dead bear was found that day. The other bears were found on May 28 and June 4 near Wallen’s home.

In his testimony, Wallen described feeling threatened by all three bears and remembered physically shaking after the bears were gone, court documents say. During an earlier interview during the investigation, Wallen signed an affidavit stating that he was fearful for himself and his family.

However, discrepancies in his accounts of the incident caused the court to find lack of credibility in Wallen’s statements, court records say.

Many people do not realize how deadly a .22 is.   Many head of big game has been killed with the .22 long rifle cartridge.  It is a favorite of both subsistence hunters and poachers, who are often the same person.   But the "bullet proof" or at least "bullet resistant" capabilities of bears has been hyped to the thousand yard line and beyond.   The shooter, Wallen, said that he shot to scare the bears away.  At least one of the bears was hit in the hind quarter.  I wonder if he thought that the .22 would not cause them serious damage.  

In addition to the bears being acclimated to humans, the trio were three half grown cubs about 150 pounds each. The cubs and the adult female had a long history of conflict with humans.  At some point the adolescent grizzly bears had been left by the female, about two weeks previous to the shooting.  As the bears were about the size of adult black bears, and "black bears" come in all shades of color from black to brown, there may have been some confusion about which species they were.  It seems unlikely, and the judge said, that according to the law, it does not matter.  From the ruling:

Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction 5.6 (2010).  To Establish that Wallen acted "knowingly," the government was only required to prove that Wallen knowingly "shot an animal which turned out to be a grizzly bear," not that "he knew he was shooting a grizzly bear at the time he pulled the trigger."

It may be that a "request for a jury trial" is not sufficient in federal court.  Perhaps a "demand for a jury trial" is required.  I hope that lawyers who read this will comment on it and educate us.   Could if be that the judge "persuaded" Mr. Wallen that he really did not want a jury trial?    It seems likely that everyone in the area knew about these problem bears and their predations.

I do not know if there will be an appeal.  They are expensive, and it is politically correct to value three rogue bears over a single American gun owner's freedom, safety, and property.  Perhaps Mr. Wallen was confused when  he talked to law enforcement.  Perhaps he was scared; what informed citizen would not be cautious and concerned in that situation?

I do not see his changes in storyline as being evidence of guilt.  I would like to see the case go to a jury, but that seems unlikely.  It was the burden of the government in this case to prove that the defendant did not act in self defense, or defense of others, beyond a reasonable doubt.  The judge thought that the changes in the story line met that criteria.   Perhaps we need a federal version of the "Castle Doctrine" with respect to bears.

I have a different opinion.  The bears were "problem bears" with numerous complaints.  They repeatedly showed up on Mr. Wallen's property, killed his chickens, and were not easily persuaded to leave.  As rogue bears in close proximity to people, they were, by definition, a clear and present danger.   Someone was going to have to deal with these dangerous animals eventually.   It was the misfortune of Mr. Wallen that he became that unlucky person.

Bears that have grown up being habituated to humans must be dealt with.  As the wildlife managers say, "A fed bear is a dead bear".

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[Crazieman]

When’s judge and bureaucrat season?

Anyone know the bag limit?

[Vermont Lt]

Did he plead guilty?

One is not denied a trial by jury.

[pepsionice]

Germany had the ‘problem-bear’ episode around 2006. This was the first bear reported within Germany in around 150 years. For six weeks, he was an acceptable bear, then farmers started to complain over him killing some sheep and chickens. Then he got problem-bear status where a bunch of Finn bear hunters were hired to tranquilize and recover him. The brief four weeks of Finn hunting was worthy of a 300-page book. In the end, the Finns gave up and the Bavarian government approved full-scale hunting of the bear, and about eight hours into the hunt...he was found and killed.

[Junk Silver]

“What is clear to anyone that studies bear problems, is that these were problem bears, and would have to be dealt with sooner or later.”

What is clear to any bureaucrat who studies armed patriot problems, is that these were problem patriots, and would have to be dealt with sooner or later.

[defconw]

Something hinky here. He should win his appeal.

[verga]

I am amazed that he killed not just one Grizzly bear with a .22 but three.

Heck I wold have to think twice about going after one with the Ruger Redhawk .44.

[Arm_Bears]

Sounds like a problem judge, to me.

[Paid_Russian_Troll]

This guy must be a one lucky kamikaze to go for bear with 22lr. Here is an assured kill: As a downside it pretty much screws your game up and much of your bear won't be edible. But it is still better than be eaten yourself.

[Paladin2]

Was his house bear proof?

[onedoug]

Sixth Amendment violation?

[Leaning Right]

One is not denied a trial by jury.

I really wish someone would explain this case. Like you, I thought that a trial by jury was always citizen's right.

Could it be that he broke a "regulation" and not a "law"? It shouldn't make any difference, but in today's America...

[Flag_This]

Shoot, shovel and shut up.

[Pontiac]

In addition to the bears being acclimated to humans, the trio were three half grown cubs about 150 pounds each.

It is not surprising to kill a 150 pound cub with a .22

[jstaff]

Bingo.

[Pollster1]

One is not denied a trial by jury.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . .

Several florists and bakers would have said one is not denied the right to the free exercise of religion. This is not the United States of our youth. The "Living Constitution" means what liberals want it to mean, and some animals are more equal than others in this brave new world.

[Cboldt]

-- Sixth Amendment violation? --

One would think so, given the plain language of the sixth amendment. But SCOTUS has construed the word "all" to mean "all with a possible penalty greater than 6 months."

[Happy_Regicide]

Doesn’t sound credible to me either. Sounds like he just decided to kill himself some bears.

12 months and $65k...

[TexasGator]

http://ravallirepublic.com/pdf_4c17f022-320a-5202-83fb-6fd7bb9f1845.html

[marktwain]

Thank you for the education. I thought the six month rule only applied to the states, and not all used it.

Now that you mention it, they can also pile as many “six month charges” into the trial as they want, correct?

So in this case, the fellow could go to jail for as much as a year and a half, and be fined $75,000. Is that correct?

All for doing something that his neighbors likely applauded him for.