Author: Walters, Susan J.

Publication Year: 1977

Media Type: Report

Summary:

In v. McClain, five defendants were charged with violation of the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA) for conspiring to sell a number of stolen pre-Columbian artifacts to an undercover agent of the FBI and to the Mexican Cultural Institute in San Antonio. At the trial, although the defendants admitted that the artifacts were illegally exported from Mexico, they denied that the goods were stolen.

Abstract:

In v. McClain, five defendants were charged with violation of the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA) for conspiring to sell a number of stolen pre-Columbian artifacts to an undercover agent of the FBI and to the Mexican Cultural Institute in San Antonio. At the trial, although the defendants admitted that the artifacts were illegally exported from Mexico, they denied that the goods were stolen. The trial judge instructed the jury that under the NSPA, the term stolen goods refers to property willfully taken without permission and with an intent to deprive the owner of the benefits of ownership. The jury was also instructed that under Mexican law, all pre-Columbian artifacts have been owned by Mexico since 1897. The jury found the defendants guilty. The defendants appealed, contending that the jury instructions regarding the definition of stolen and the date when ownership vested in Mexico were incorrect.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's charge with respect to the definition of stolen, but found that under Mexican law ownership of the artifacts vested in Mexico in 1972, not 1897, and therefore remanded for a new trial. Specifically, the court held that art objects brought into the from Mexico will be considered stolen under the NSPA only if Mexico has expressly declared national ownership and has prohibited the export of the particular objects allegedly stolen. The court determined that the definition of stolen property involved depriving another of the benefits of ownership. In examining the meaning of ownership under the NSPA, the Fifth Circuit held that possession was not a necessary element of ownership, and that a sovereign nation could declare ownership. This note will examine the court's findings with respect to the proper definition of stolen and ownership under the NSPA. It will also consider the possible effects of these rulings on art collections and museums. (p. 727-729).

CONTENTS

1. Introduction.
2. The decision of the fifth circuit.
3. Conclusion.

Arts & Intersections:

Categories: Funding