Question: How did the defendant make his case relating to wildlife crime?
About the article "Yellowstone National Park", section "Legal jurisdiction".

Candidate passages:
In Mitchell, the defendant fired shots into a room at night where his intended victim usually slept, intending to murder the victim.
One bullet struck the victim's usual pillow.
But the defendant did not know that the victim was sleeping elsewhere that particular night.
Using these circumstances (that the bed was empty), the defendant pleaded not guilty on the grounds that the intended crime was factually impossible to commit, as there was no victim in the room into which he fired.
At trial, the defendant was found guilty of attempted murder.
The fact that the intended crime was impossible for the defendant to commit was not considered a defense for the charge of attempting to commit a felony, in this case murder.
The defendant then appealed his judgment of conviction and sentence. 
This defense particularly requires an accurate assessment since it determines the guilt or innocence of a person.
It would be troubling if an individual guilty of disturbing crimes, such as possessing child pornography were set free, but even more troubling if an innocent person were convicted of a crime they did not commit.
It is problematic that criminals can use this defense strategy to camouflage their crimes.
For example, criminals can potentially plant Trojans on their own computers and later use the Trojan horse defense to escape prosecution of their crime.
Furthermore, the availability of the defense raises concerns that the defendant can use a jury’s ignorance, and likely suspicion, of technology to obtain an acquittal even when the evidence overwhelmingly supports a conviction.
It is possible that some cases are being acquitted since juror are not technologically knowledgeable.
For a layman juror, the sheer volume and complexity of expert testimonies relating to computer technology, such as Trojan horse, could make it difficult for them to separate facts from fallacy.
On the other hand, it is crucial to prevent wrongful prosecution of an innocent person.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to prevent the problematic matters that arise during the term of the investigation.
For example, in the case of Julian Green, before his acquittal, he spent one night in the cells, nine days in prison, three months in a bail hostel and lost custody of his daughter and possession of his house.
In the following case of Karl Schofield, he was attacked by vigilantes following reports of his arrest, lost his employment and the case took two years to come to trial.
While an acquittal of an innocent person is crucial, such distressing experience a person has to go through is one of the few controversial matters. 
In such cases of a "state of affairs" crimes, the defendant may be found liable even if they did not purposefully or voluntarily commit a criminal act.
This is seen in "R v Larsonneur" (1933), where the defendant was French and entered the UK, but then got deported to Ireland, and then deported back to the UK and arrested for being an 'illegal alien'.
The defendant was not at fault as she did not intentionally re-enter the UK under the Alien Act; however she was still liable for the crime under Alien Act, as there was no need to prove the act was voluntary.
This was also seen in the case of "Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent" (1983) where the defendant was admitted to hospital by a friend who was worried for his health.
However when the hospital realized he was merely drunk to the point of being semi – unconscious, they threw him out of the hospital.
The defendant, because of his intoxicated state, could not get home, and was liable for been drunk and disorderly.
Even though he did not have intention for the crime, nor was he at fault, due to the crime been one of state of affairs he was liable and charged as such. 
The plaintiff had instituted action against the defendant for damages arising from an alleged unlawful arrest and detention.
The defendant considered that the police docket relating to such arrest was privileged, and listed it accordingly in his discovery affidavit.
The plaintiff then launched the application "in casu" for an order directing the defendant to make the police docket available for inspection and copying. 
Technically, intoxication is not a defence, but negates the mens rea for specific intent offenses (e.g.
it commutes a murder sentence to manslaughter).
In other words, a defendant may have been so drunk, or drugged, that he was incapable of forming the criminal intention required.
Voluntary intoxication is considered reckless, a state of basic intent, which means one cannot have ones sentence reduced for crimes of basic intent (e.g.
manslaughter, assault, etc.).
So for instance, in "R v Sheehan and Moore" two viciously drunken scoundrels threw petrol on a tramp and set fire to him.
They got off for murder, but still went down for manslaughter, since that is a crime of basic intent.
Of course, it can well be the case that someone is not drunk enough to support any intoxication defence at all.
On the other hand, if someone becomes involuntarily intoxicated, because his drink is laced or spiked, then the question is whether the normal "mens rea" was present at the incident's time.
So where a blackmailer drugged a man's coffee, invited him to abuse a 15 year old boy, and photographed it, the man was denied the defence of intoxication because the court simply did not believe that the man did not intend to commit the abuse.
Sometimes intoxicated people make mistakes, as in "R v Lipman" where the defendant took LSD, thought his girlfriend was a snake and strangled her.
Here, intoxication operated as a defence because Mr Lipman was mistaken in his specific intent of killing a snake.
But intoxication does not negative the basic intent crime of manslaughter, with his "reckless course of conduct" in taking drugs.
Lastly, while a mistake about a person or the actual action is acceptable, a mistake about how much force to use to defend oneself is not.
Using a sledgehammer to fend off an "attacker" after 20 pints of beer is disproportionate.