United States v. Grigsby
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
111 F.3d 806 (1997)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
David and Doris Grigsby (defendants) owned and operated a Canadian taxidermy business. In the course of their business, the Grigsbys undertook assisting a customer, R.W. Ashton, in selling African elephant ivory tusks. Thus, the Grigsbys placed an advertisement for the tusks. An American citizen, Kenneth Enright, saw the advertisement and sought to purchase the tusks. Enright asked the Grigsbys to obtain the proper Canadian export documentation. At the time, the United States had in effect the African Elephant Conservation Act (AECA), which made it unlawful for any person to import raw ivory from any other country other than the ivory-producing country. The Grigsbys testified that they were unaware of the United States law and thus went forward with the sale. The United States government (plaintiff) brought charges against the Grigsbys alleging conspiracy to import raw African elephant ivory in violation of the AECA. At trial, the defense and the prosecution hotly contested what the proper jury instructions were for the violation of the AECA. Specifically, the defense argued that the jury should be instructed that the AECA required specific intent rather than general intent. The district court ultimately instructed the jury that a violation of the AECA required general intent. The Grigsbys were convicted by the jury. On appeal, the Grigsbys argued that the text of the AECA required specific intent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Birch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.