D operated oil-water separator tanks and failed to install required tank covers. Migratory birds fell into the uncovered tanks and died. P suspected birds had died in D's uncovered tanks. P charged D with 'taking' migratory birds in violation of the MBTA, 16 U.S.C. § 703. D was indicted for 'taking' or 'aiding and abetting the taking' of migratory birds, not for 'killing' them. In the nonjury phase of the trial, the district court found D guilty of three (out of five) counts for 'taking' migratory birds. The district court drew three significant conclusions. It held that an illegal 'taking' is an ambiguous term that involves more activities than those related to hunting, poaching and intentional acts against migratory birds. It held that strict liability requires, in this context, only that the actor proximately caused the illegal 'taking.' It then held that D's violation of federal and state regulations that required roofing these tanks could support the company's misdemeanor convictions. D contends that illegally 'taking' migratory birds involves only 'conduct intentionally directed at birds, such as hunting and trapping, not commercial activity that unintentionally and indirectly causes' migratory bird deaths. D was found guilty. The district court denied D's motion to vacate these convictions.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.