If it turns out you were mistaken and had actually stumbled onto a bona fide research project, would it be fair charge you with “stealing” the line you hauled up and left on the dock? The U.S. Department of Justice thought so, and pursued felony charges against the two boat operators, John Moore, and Tanner Mansell, for theft of property within the “special maritime jurisdiction” of the United States.
A jury reluctantly convicted Moore and Mansell after sending out multiple notes to the judge and nearly deadlocking. The Eleventh Circuit reluctantly affirmed, with one judge—herself a former federal prosecutor—castigating the AUSA by name in her concurrence for “taking a page out of Inspector Javert’s playbook.” She noted that Moore and Mansell “never sought to derive any benefit from their conduct” and have been branded as lifelong felons “for having violated a statute that no reasonable person would understand to prohibit the conduct they engaged in.”
On Monday, Cato filed an amicus brief urging the court to grant en banc review and reverse the convictions. The brief explains that for centuries, the greatest protection against unjust convictions and punishments was the institution of jury independence, including so-called “jury nullification.” But because modern judges have effectively nullified the power to nullify, it is all the more important that other defendant-protecting doctrines—such as the rule of lenity—be applied robustly. Because the jury instructions reflected a broad conception of the word “steal” rather than a narrow one, Moore and Mansell are entitled to a new trial with a properly instructed jury.
