That's what I was worried about. Before anyone can make any sort of defensible moral judgment, one has to get the facts. And where the facts are coming from the media, selectively presented and colored according to editorial intent, one can't get a good idea of them. That's really all a court case is intended to do: determine what the facts are most likely to be.
If there is evidence of actual malice, it's more of a legal slam-dunk. But if there isn't evidence of actual malice, then the case turns on many finer points and must be carefully and deliberately dissected. According to CBS there doesn't seem to be any malice; the woman legitimately believed it was hers to sell.
Indeed. Unfortunately as explained below, it's the property of the U.S. government unless shown to be otherwise.
True but misleading. There is no law that specifically mentions Apollo lunar samples. They are simply considered U.S. government property, and people in whose custody government property resides may not sell it and pocket the proceeds.
Whether it really is government property is what's in question.
Six months is not a long time to build a criminal case, especially if the suspect is not being held. Federal prosecutors move at the speed of government. If she hasn't heard anything after about two years, she should be reasonably safe.
Only a great cretin of a prosecutor would charge her, I think. Regardless of any legal merit of the case against her, I doubt many federal juries would rule against an elderly widow trying to care for her family by selling what she believed was her property. A smart prosecutor would realize that's an unwinnable case and save himself the trouble.
That's probably not how a court would see it. U.S. law has a clear and extensive understanding of the difference between possession and ownership. NASA's general policy is that lunar samples it gives out as gifts remain the property of the U.S. government even if they are still in private possession. Under that policy, the attempt to sell any Apollo lunar sample privately would be sufficient evidence by itself to establish probable cause.
To
possess the sample would be just fine; those would have been the normal terms under which the sample had been presented. But to
sell the sample asserts ownership, which is not granted under the terms of the transfer, hence NASA can then assume the property has been "stolen" rather than being simply under someone else's care.
It's similar to the bailment created when you leave your car with the valet. He has possession of it, and is expected to exercise reasonable care and present it to you on demand in the same condition. He may act in certain ways to exercise his duty of care, such as drive it to a place of his choosing for safekeeping. But while he has possession and custody of it, he does not have ownership. He may not sell your car, or use it for collateral for a debt obligation, or in any other way encumber your title to it.
In short, NASA may not have to prove it's "stolen" property.
Since an umbrella policy has existed for a long time, the woman would have to prove that her husband not only had possession of the sample but also title. That could be done with an explicit transfer of title: a document that establishes that the presentation to her husband was a transfer of title, in exception to the otherwise prevailing policy of transfer of custody.
It could also be done if she could show that NASA abandoned title to it. For example, if NASA cleaned the space suits of returning astronauts and discarded the sweepings, someone could recover the sweepings from the trash and claim ownership. Or if there were an explicit abandonment of title, which occurs when government property is decommissioned, although that typically requires a public auction if the property is deemed of substantial value.
The bottom line is that because of NASA's published policy, the woman would have to mount an affirmative defense, which puts the burden of proof on her (even in court). And I doubt she has the burden of proof.
As I said, I would be very surprised if she were charged, especially with all the negative publicity this case has attracted. However, even if she isn't charged with dealing in stolen U.S. government property, it's unlikely she will get the rock back. Unless she can prove she had title to it, not just possession, then NASA can assert its original title over the sample and demand it be returned.
No argument from me on that point. It's highly likely that the woman would have complied with less invasive and heavy-handed measures. She probably would have responded to a simple "knock-and-talk" visit by an agent to discuss the legality of the sale.
There
is a black market for Apollo lunar material, and this likely affected how the agents chose to deal with here. They probably harbored much more suspicion than the evidence warranted.