Jim Oltersdorf, Vindicated of Federal Charges on Baiting Case

October 25, 2009 by  
Filed under Trail Boss News

Some of you might remember Jim Oltersdorf who was charged with bear baiting in order to get film of a bear for Monster Quest. The charges have been dropped by the US Attorneys office in Alaska without prejudice.  I am sure Jim is relieved and can get back to work.   His statement and court documents are below.

“I wish to thank the many people who supported me in this difficult situation.  Throughout this ordeal I have received positive communication from people all over the nation that have followed my spotless record and photographic career that has spanned over 30 years.  Their letters of support and encouragement were welcomed and appreciated.  I shall continue to strive to be as conservation-minded as ever and as always, promote the highest degree of professionalism and conduct in my field of outdoor photography”.

Signed,

Jim Oltersdorf

Soldotna, Alaska

KAREN L. LOEFFLER

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

JOSEPH D. DARNELL

SPECIAL ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

United States Department of the Interior

Office of the Solicitor – Alaska Region

4230 University Drive, Suite 300

Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4650

(907) 271-4131 / Fax (907) 271-4143

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

(Plaintiff )

Case No. 3:09-po-3 v. (Viol. No. 0736093)

MOTION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE AND

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

No period of excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161, will occur as a result of the filing or granting of this motion. This is a Class B misdemeanor which is not subject to the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. 3172. Defendant was arraigned before the Court in the above-captioned matter October 6, 2009. Trial is set for Wednesday, November 4, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

This case involves a Class B misdemeanor charge of baiting black bears without a special use permit on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, in violation of 16 U.S.C. 688dd, and 36 C.F.R. 36.39(a)(i)(5)(ii). Upon further review of the case, it appears the interests of justice would best be served by dismissal of the violation notice issued in this matter. The particular facts of the case do not meet the criteria of the offense charged.

A fundamental consideration in assessing the propriety of a prosecutors motion to

Case 3:09-po-00003-JDR Document 3 Filed 10/13/2009 Page 1 of 3

dismiss under Criminal Rule 48(a) is whether the motion is made in good faith. When the government requests a Rule 48(a) dismissal in good faith, the district court is duty bound to honor the request.1 Examples of motions made in bad faith include motions made based on lack of preparedness for trial or motions made to gain a tactical advantage such as a more favorable jury.2 Motions to dismiss should be denied only if clearly contrary to manifest public interest.3 As set forth above, dismissal is in the public interest. Consent of the defendant is unnecessary because trial has not commenced;4 however, Defendant’s counsel has been informed by the undersigned that a motion to dismiss the charge will be filed.

WHEREFORE the government requests that this case be dismissed without prejudice and that the trial date of November 4, 2009 be vacated.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of October, 2009, in Anchorage, Alaska.

KAREN L. LOEFFLER

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

s/ Joseph D. Darnell

Joseph D. Darnell

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

1 United States v. Hayden, 860 F.2d 1483, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Wallace, 848 F.2d 1464, 1468 (9th Cir. 1988).

2 Hayden, 860 F.2d n. 7; Wallace, supra.

3 See generally 8B Moore, James Wm., Moore=s Federal Practice Par. 48.02[2] (2d Ed. 1991 Revision); United States v. Weber, 721 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1983)

4 United States v. Valencia, 492 F. 2d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1974)

2 Case 3:09-po-00003-JDR Document 3 Filed 10/13/2009 Page 2 of 3 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this

13th day of October, 2009, a copy

of the foregoing Motion to Vacate Trial Date

and Dismiss Without Prejudice was served

electronically on the following counsel of record:

Brent R. Cole

Marston & Cole, P.C.

Attorneys for Jim J. Oltersdorf

821 N Street, suite 208

Anchorage, AK 99501

s/ Travis E. Harding

Travis E. Harding,

Legal Assistant

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Motion of the United States to dismiss the violation notice, and good cause having been shown, it is

ORDERED that the Motion of the United States to dismiss without prejudice the charge set forth in Case No. 3.09-po-3 (Violation Notice No. 0736093) and vacate the scheduled trial date is GRANTED.

______________________________

______

John D. Roberts

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated:______________

Case 3:09-po-00003-JDR Document 3 Filed 10/13/2009 Page 3 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

vs.

JIM OLTERSDORF,

Defendant.

3:09-PO-003-JDR

(AL5A 0735907)

ORDER

GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docket No. 3)

The government moves to dismiss without prejudice the citation issued

in the above entitled cause charging the defendant with Baiting Bears without a

Permit. Upon due consideration and being fully advised in the premises the

government’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice is GRANTED.

DATED this 21st day of October, 2009, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ John D. Roberts

JOHN D. ROBERTS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-po-00003-JDR Document 4 Filed 10/21/2009 Page 1 of 1

Oct. 21, 2009

Share

Comments

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.