United States v. Lyman
| Decision Date | 22 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:14-cr-00470-DN |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP KAY LYMAN AND MONTE JEROME WELLS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Defendant Philip Kay Lyman has filed a Motion1 for a New Trial ("Motion") pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant Monte Jerome Wells joined Mr. Lyman's Motion on August 26, 2015.2 After carefully reviewing the parties' filings and relevant legal and statutory authorities, the Motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
On May 10, 2014, Defendants and others rode through an area of Recapture Canyon located in San Juan County, Utah. The Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") had closed that area of Recapture Canyon to motorized use sometime in 2007 ("Closed Area"). The May 10, 2014 ride led to charges against the Defendants and two other individuals.
On December 5, 2014, the United States of America ("Government") filed a Superseding Misdemeanor Information charging Mr. Lyman, Mr. Wells, and two other individuals with violating 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1733 and 43 C.F.R. § 8341.1 by knowingly and willfully operatingan off-road vehicle in an area closed to such vehicles.3 These same individuals were also charged with participating in a conspiracy with others to engage in the operation of off-road vehicles in an area closed to such vehicles, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.4 On May 1, 2015, the jury found Mr. Lyman and Mr. Wells guilty on both counts.5
Defendants allege that new evidence was discovered after their conviction which the Government "inadvertently"6 failed to disclose. The allegedly undisclosed evidence is a 1979 Map7 which was stored in the BLM files.8 Defendants argue that the 1979 Map "shows that the road on which Mr. Lyman and others traveled on May 10, 2014 was a public highway, an R.S. 2477 right-of-way[,]" and therefore not closed to off-road vehicles.9
Defendants also point out that on August 5, 2015, the State of Utah notified the United States Department of the Interior of its intent to sue ("State's Intent to Sue") to quiet title to the Recapture Canyon R.S. 2477 right-of-way. That is, the State has taken the position that an R.S. 2477 right-of-way exists and has existed since at least 1976 on the Recapture Canyon Road. Defendants allege that this is the same road traveled by Defendants in the present case. Defendants' request for a new trial is based on the discovery of the 1979 Map and on the State's Intent to Sue.
Defendants argue that they are entitled to a new trial based on the Government's alleged failure to disclose exculpatory information—the 1979 Map—as required by Brady v. Maryland.10 "A defendant who seeks a new trial under Rule 33 based on an alleged Brady violation must show that '(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence, (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant, and (3) the evidence was material.'"11
Defendants assume that the 1979 Map is evidence that would have been admissible at trial, and instead focus their arguments on the suppression of the 1979 Map by the Government.12 But the Government argues that the 1979 Map is not admissible evidence and therefore a new trial should not be ordered.13 In order to obtain a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, that evidence must be admissible in a new trial.14
The 1979 Map is not admissible in a new trial because Defendants do not have standing to challenge the legality of the BLM's decision to close the area in question by asserting an R.S. 2477 right-of-way defense. Whether the area of Recapture Canyon Defendants traveled was legally closed during the ride on May 10, 2014 was brought before Judge Shelby in a motion todismiss filed by Mr. Lyman.15 Judge Shelby rejected Mr. Lyman's motion and held that the Closed Area was lawfully closed to motorized use during the May 10, 2014 ride.16 The Government, therefore, proved the "closed road" element of the offense. The legality of the trial closure was later confirmed in jury instruction no. 30, which received no objection from the parties. That instruction reads:
As I told you earlier, you are the judges of the facts in this case. I am the judge of the law. One of the issues of law I have already decided in this case concerns the legality of the BLM's closure of certain trails in Recapture Canyon. I have already ruled that the BLM's closure of sections of Recapture Canyon to off-road vehicles was enacted on September 13, 2007 pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 8341.2 was lawful and was in effect on May 10, 2014.17
On April 10, 2015, the Government filed a motion in limine to preclude Defendants from presenting any evidence or argument that "the closed road in Recapture Canyon is a right of way under R.S. 2477[.]"18 The Government argued that "Defendants should not be able to put forth evidence purporting to establish that the road that BLM closed in Recapture Canyon is an R.S. 2477 right of way because Defendants lack standing to do so."19 Mr. Wells filed a response to the Government's motion in limine, in which he stated that he was not planning on pursuing an R.S. 2477 right-of-way defense at trial.20 Mr. Lyman did not file a response to the motion in limine.21 Judge Shelby granted the Government's motion in limine on April 22, 2015.22
Defendants now argue that they would have opposed the Government's motion in limine had the 1979 Map been disclosed.23 Whether the Defendants would have opposed the Government's motion in limine is irrelevant because it does not change the fact that, as a matter of law, Defendants do not have standing to raise an unadjudicated R.S. 2477 defense.
Judge Tena Campbell addressed the issue of whether a criminal defendant has standing to raise an unadjudicated R.S. 2477 defense in United States v. Jessop.24 Mr. Jessop was charged with operating an off-road vehicle on federal public land closed to off-road vehicle travel, in violation of 43 C.F.R. § 8341.1(c)—the same statute violated by Defendants.25 "The non-jury criminal matter was brought before a United States Magistrate Judge for resolution."26 Mr. Jessop wanted to raise an R.S. 2477 defense. "As the basis for his defense, Mr. Jessop contended that the area where he traveled, sometimes referred to as a right-of-way, was not federal but rather was reserved to the State of Utah by historic statute R.S. 2477 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA")."27 This is the same argument that Defendants are trying to raise through the 1979 Map.
The magistrate judge found that Mr. Jessop did not have standing to challenge the legality of the BLM's closure of the right-of-way at issue in that case, and granted the government's motion in limine to exclude an R.S. 2477 defense as a matter of law.28 The magistrate judge stated, among other things, that Mr. Jessop 29
Mr. Jessop appealed his conviction to Judge Tena Campbell, "claiming that he, as a criminal defendant, did have standing to assert the defense, and further, that the United States failed to establish a prima facie case against him because it did not prove that the area was in fact federal land properly closed to off-road vehicles."30 Judge Campbell affirmed the magistrate judge's ruling. Judge Campbell held that Mr. Jessop's "R.S. 2477 defense is not permissible as a matter of law."31 In so holding, Judge Campbell explained:
[Mr. Jessop] misstates what the BLM must prove in his case. Here, BLM presented uncontested evidence that it went through the proper procedures to close the area to [off road vehicle] use. Mr. Jessop does not challenge those facts. Nor does he suggest that any court has issued a finding under the Quiet Title Act regarding R.S. 2477 status of the Broad Hollow area. Instead, he generally challenges the BLM's authority to close the area. His argument fails because it has already been established as a matter of law that BLM has the authority to close the area. Specifically, a legal presumption in favor of the federal land manager cannot be overcome absent completion of a valid Quiet Title Act lawsuit resulting in the judicial finding that an R.S. 2477 right-of-way exists."32
Similar to Jessop, Defendants in the present case argue that they were traveling on an existing right-of-way over federal land granted by an R.S. 2477. They contend that the 1979 Map reveals the existence of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way and therefore negates an essential element of the charged offense—whether the area they traveled was closed. They do not contend that there has been any adjudication of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way.
Defendants argue that "an R.S. 2477 right-of-way exists with 'no administrative formalities' and 'without formal action by public authorities.'"33 Defendants are correct that "[a]cceptance of an R.S. 2477 right of way in Utah . . . [simply] requires continuous public use for a period of ten years."34 For unadjudicated R.S. 2477 claims, however, "determining when a highway is deemed to be dedicated to the use of the public, '[t]he presumption is in favor of the property owner [the United States]; and the burden of establishing public use for the required period of time is on those claiming it.'"35
The Quiet Title Act provides the exclusive means by which a claimed right in federal property may be adjudicated.36 Because an alleged right-of-way under R.S. 2477 is a "property right[] ostensibly vested in the Counties by operation of the statute, . . ....
To continue reading
Request your trial