In November 2011, the defendant attempted to sell, or sold (which he denies), two African elephant tusks that he had lawfully acquired and legally imported into the United States as “sporting trophies” from a hunting safari that he had taken in Namibia several years prior. The government believed that this attempted sale (or sale) violated federal law, so it charged him by indictment with one count of sale and/or transport of elephant tusks in violation of the Endangered Species Act, and two counts of making a “false record” and account of wildlife in violation of the Lacey Act.

Upon review of the relevant law and the evidence at trial, it was concluded that the defendant was entitled to judgment of acquittal on each of the counts as no reasonable jury could find—based on the evidence presented—at what he did (however characterized) was illegal. The defendant now seeks reimbursement for his attorney's fees and costs on the ground that the government brought a case to trial “that had no reasonable basis” and “that never should have happened.” The government has filed a response in opposition to this motion.

Judgment:
Congress enacted the Hyde Amendment as part of the Appropriations Act of 1998, and it provides a high standard for an award of attorney's fees and costs against the United States in a criminal case.” United States v. Shaygan, 652 F.3d 1297, 1311 (11th Cir.2011). A prevailing defendant faces a “ ‘daunting obstacle’ “ in seeking fees and costs under the statute. See id. at 1312. He may recover only if the court finds that the position of the United States was objectively “vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.”

As such, the defendant's motion for attorney fees and costs is denied.