▁the ▁case ▁was ▁covered ▁by ▁the ▁" special ▁mar itime ▁juris diction " ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁C riminal ▁Code , ▁which ▁extended ▁American ▁juris diction ▁to ▁" any ▁vessel ▁belonging ▁... ▁to ▁the ▁United ▁States ". ▁Judge ▁Lewis ▁indicated ▁that ▁in ▁the ▁absence ▁of ▁clear ▁preced ent , ▁this ▁was ▁not ▁a ▁definite ▁decision , ▁and ▁he ▁expected ▁the ▁matter ▁to ▁be ▁resolved ▁on ▁appeal . ▁ ▁In ▁the ▁trial , ▁Esc amil la ' s ▁defence ▁argued ▁that ▁he ▁had ▁taken ▁the ▁rif le ▁in ▁the ▁belief ▁that ▁Le av itt ▁was ▁likely ▁to ▁be ▁violent ▁when ▁confront ed ; ▁that ▁Light sey ▁was ▁himself ▁acting ▁worry ingly ▁when ▁he ▁asked ▁to ▁be ▁given ▁the ▁rif le ; ▁and ▁that ▁the ▁rif le ▁was ▁defect ive ▁and ▁could ▁have ▁gone ▁off ▁accident ally . ▁A ▁weapons ▁expert ▁test ified ▁in ▁support ▁of ▁the ▁last ▁point , ▁and ▁the ▁defence ▁called ▁five ▁character ▁witness es ▁from ▁his ▁home ▁in ▁California ▁to ▁test ify ▁to ▁his ▁peace ful ▁and ▁non - vi ol ent ▁nature . ▁However , ▁only ▁one ▁was ▁allowed ▁to ▁test ify . ▁The ▁defence ▁also ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁j ury ▁should ▁be ▁instruct ed ▁to ▁consider ▁the ▁special ▁conditions ▁which ▁were ▁present ▁on ▁T - 3 ▁– ▁for ▁example , ▁the ▁lack ▁of ▁law ▁enfor cement ▁and ▁the ▁absence ▁of ▁lock able ▁doors ▁– ▁and ▁how ▁they ▁might ▁affect ▁what ▁constit uted ▁neg lig ent ▁conduct . ▁The ▁judge ▁refused ▁to ▁make ▁such ▁a ▁direction . ▁The ▁j ury