United States v. Hollinshead: A New Leap in Extraterritorial Application of Criminal Laws
![handle is hein.journals/hasint1 and id is 167 raw text is: United States v. Hollinshead:
A New Leap in Extraterritorial Application
of Criminal Laws
By Wniui J. HuGES
Member of the Class of 1977.
0 N AUGUST 28,1972, a federal grand jury handed up an indictment
charging Clive Hollinshead, George Alamilla, and Johnnie Brown
Fell with conspiring to transport stolen goods in interstate and foreign
commerce, and causing the transportation of stolen property in inter-
state commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The salient facts of
the case are these: Hollinshead, a dealer in pre-Columbian artifacts,
arranged with Alamilla to procure such artifacts in Central America,
and to finance Alamilla in doing so. The evidence centered primarily
on one artifact, a rare and valuable pre-Columbian stela, known as
Machaquila Stela 2. The stela, a large limestone slab, eighty-two inches
high and forty-nine inches wide, has the figure of a priest on its face,
and hieroglyphs on its face and side. It was found at a recently dis-
covered Mayan ruin in the jungle of Guatemala. The Machaquila Stela
2 was cut into pieces and brought to Fells fish packing plant i- Belize,
British Honduras. There the pieces were packed into boxes marked
personal effects and addressed to Hollinshead at Santa Fe Springs,
California. Hollinshead was present during this operation as were cer-
tain Guatemalan officers, who departed after receiving certain gratui-
ties. The stela was shipped to Miami, Florida, where Fell and another
conspirator picked it up. They attempted, without success, to sell it
to various collectors and museums in the United States, traveling with
it to Georgia, New York, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Ultimately,
it arrived in Hollinshead's possession in California, where he offered the
stela for sale until it was seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
On March 14, 1973, Hollinshead and Fell were found guilty in a
Los Angeles Federal District Court on both counts.' The District Court
opinion was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeal for the
Ninth Circuit, and rehearing was subsequently denied.2
1. United States v. Hollinshead, No. 10970 DC (S.D.Cal., March 14, 1973).
2. United States v. Hollinshead, 495 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1974).
C 149]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/hasint1&div=13&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
United States v. Hollinshead: A New Leap in Extraterritorial Application of Criminal Laws
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most