United States v. Clavette
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
135 F.3d 1308 (1998)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
After finding a dead grizzly bear that had been shot multiple times, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the Wildlife Service) Special Agent Tim Eicher opened an investigation to identify the bear’s killer. During the investigation, Eicher spoke with two bowhunters who encountered a man at a campsite who inquired about what would happen to someone who killed a grizzly bear. The bowhunters informed the man that someone who killed a grizzly must prove self-defense to avoid penalties. Eicher later identified Paul Clavette (defendant) as the man from the campsite. Clavette admitted to killing the bear but alleged the bear was killed in self-defense. Clavette initially claimed that the bear was circling the campsite and appeared ready to attack. Later, Clavette alleged that two bears had been present at the campsite, but Clavette’s wife separately claimed only one bear was present. At trial, Clavette’s wife testified that two bears were present and that one charged Clavette before being shot. A wildlife laboratory supervisor testified that all of the bullet-entry wounds were on the rear section of the bear’s body, and no wounds were found on the bear’s head, chest, or front legs. Clavette was convicted of taking a grizzly bear in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and appealed the conviction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reavley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
