UNITED STATES v. LYNCH, 233 F.3d 1139 (2000)
-
Synopsis: Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska of knowingly removing archeological resource from public land, in violation of Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and he appealed.
-
Holding: A felony conviction under ARPA required that defendant have known that skull removed from national forest was “archeological resource.”
UNITED STATES v. QUARRELL, 310 F.3d 664 (2002)
-
Synopsis: Defendants were convicted in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico,for excavating in violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and conspiring to excavate in violation of ARPA. They appealed their convictions and the sentences imposed.
-
Holding: (1) As a matter of first impression, ARPA section imposing criminal liability for unauthorized excavation of archaeological resources from public land did not require that defendants knew they excavating on public land; (2) defendants were not precluded from presenting mistake of fact defense; (3) District Court was authorized to order restitution; (4) District Court abused its discretion in ordering defendants to pay restitution for loss to archaeological value; (5) District Court's error in calculating amount of restoration and repair costs based on co-defendant's plea agreement was harmless; (6) District court failed to make sufficient factual findings to support sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice; and (7) District Court properly denied defendant an acceptance of responsibility adjustment.
UNITES STATES v. SOMMERVILLE, 2010 WL 2933543
-
Synopsis: Defendant, who was alleged to have been involved in trafficking of illegally obtained Native American cultural artifacts, was indicted by a grand jury for violations of the Archeological Resources Protection Act (“ARPA”), and Theft of Government Property. He has moved the Court to instruct the jury with respect to issues of knowledge and intent or, as alternatives, to dismiss the indictment because of defects in the grand jury presentation, or declare the ARPA statute unconstitutional.
-
Holding: Prosecution did not need to prove that defendant had specific knowledge that his conduct violated Archaeological Resources Protection Act.
BONNICHSEN v. UNITED STATES, 217 F.Supp.2d 1116
-
Synopsis: After remand, 969 F.Supp. 628, scientists sought judicial review of a final agency decision that awarded remains of more than 9,000-year-old Kennewick Man to a coalition of Indian tribes and denied their request to study those remains.
-
Holding: Upon plaintiffs' motion for an order vacating defendants' decision on remand the District Court held that: (1) remains of Kennewick Man were not Native American within meaning of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); (2) Secretary of the Interior erred in assuming that coalition of four federally recognized Indian tribes and a band that was not federally recognized was a proper claimant under NAGPRA and in failing to separately analyze the relationship of the particular tribal claimants to the remains; (3) evidence did not support determination that there was a “cultural affiliation” between remains and tribal claimants; and (4) plaintiffs would be permitted to study the remains.
