United States v. Dolores MacKie and Celita Friera

Appellants appeal their convictions for violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 , 707(b). The only issue is whether they should have been prosecuted under the more specific Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 U.S.C. § 668 (a).

When an act is proscribed by more than one criminal statute, the government may elect to prosecute under either so long as it does not discriminate against any class of defendants, United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 123-24 , 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2203-04 , 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979), and so long as the legislative history does not indicate that Congress intended to prohibit prosecution under the more general statute. United States v. Jones, 607 F.2d 269, 271-72 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1085 , 100 S.Ct. 1043 , 62 L.Ed.2d 771 (1980); accord, United States v. Deggs, 632 F.2d 829, 830 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Abraham, 627 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1980).

The MBTA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 , 707(b), and the BGEPA, 16 U.S.C. § 668 (a), prohibit offering to sell or selling eagles or parts of eagles. Both Mackie and Friera offered to sell and sold whole eagles and eagle parts to undercover agents. Appellants violated…