This case centers around a a group of co-conspirators that created a network which unearthed pre-Columbian artifacts in South America, and shipped them abroad to be sold to collectors and museums. Hollinshead organized and financed the network. Although many artifacts travelled through this system, the court primarily focused on a rare and valuable stele known as Machaquila Stele 2. It was found in Guatemala, and transported to Fell's fish packing plant in Belize, British Honduras. There it was packed into shipping crates and addressed to Hollinshead at Santa Fe Springs, California. This was done in the presence of Hollinshead and Fell as well as other conspirators, including bribed Guatemalan officers. The stele was shipped to Miami, Florida, where Fell and another conspirator, Dwyer, picked it up. It was then shopped around to various museums and collectors in the country, traveling from Decatur, Georgia, to New York City, to Wisconsin and to Raleigh, North Carolina. Eventually it ended up in Hollinshead’s possession in California where he continued to try to sell it.
États-Unis d'Amérique
GuatemalaFell and Hollinshead were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce and of causing the transportation of stolen property in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2314. They appealed the decision.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The Appellate Court upheld the decision.
18 U.S.C. 2314
Conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce and of causing the transportation of stolen property in interstate commerce
18 U.S.C. 2314
Conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce and of causing the transportation of stolen property in interstate commerce
The main issue underlined in this case regards the reference made by the jury to the foreign law of the Guatemala. Under that law, all the pre-Columbian artifacts found in a Mayan ruin are the property of the Republic of Guatemala, and may not be removed without permission of the government.
Appellants claimed that the court erroneously instructed the jury to presume that they knew a Guatemalan law that defines the stele as a stolen property. Although the assumption that the appellants knew of the Guatemalan law was in error, this court found that such an instruction was not prejudicial towards the final conviction. This is because the appellants did not contest the use of the definition of the word ‘’stolen’’ according to NSPA (18 U.S.C. 2314), as applied for the first time in this case and because there was clear evidence that they knew that they were illegally obtaining the object. The court found unnecessary that the conspirators knew the law of the State where the property was stolen, rather that they knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the objects were stolen.
This case predates U.S. v. McClain, 545 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1977), which created the current doctrine that is applied when using the NSPA to prosecute the trafficking of cultural property. Among other additional requirements, in McClain the country of origin bringing the claim has an added burden to prove that their national laws which create a property right in their cultural objects, are clear enough to give notice to United States citizens that that property belongs to the state. (see U.S. v. McClain for more on the “McClain Doctrine”)