United States v. Weitzenhoff

Last updated
United States v. Weitzenhoff
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameUnited States of America v. Michael H. Weitzenhoff; Thomas W. Mariani
ArguedJan. 11, 1993
DecidedAugust 3, 1993
Citation(s) 1 F.3d 1523; 38 ERC 1365; 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,322
Case history
Subsequent historyAmended on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, 35 F.3d 1275; 24 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,504, August 8, 1994; cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128, 115 S.Ct. 939 (1995)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Alfred Goodwin, Betty Binns Fletcher, Marilyn L. Huff (S.D. Cal.)
Case opinions
MajorityFletcher, joined by Goodwin, Huff
Dissent Kleinfeld (dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc), joined by Reinhardt, Kozinski, Trott, Nelson
Laws applied
Clean Water Act

United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1993) [1] is a legal opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that addresses the confusing mens rea requirement of a federal environmental law that imposed criminal sanctions on certain polluters. [2] The main significance of the court's opinion was that it interpreted the word "knowingly" in the statute [2] (that is, a requirement that the violator "knowingly" violated another section of the environmental statute [3] ) to mean a general awareness of the wrongfulness of one's actions or the likelihood of illegality, rather than an actual knowledge of the statute being violated. [4] Circuit Court Judge Betty Binns Fletcher authored the majority's legal opinion in this case.

Contents

The case is illustrative of the modern trend to weaken the mens rea requirement for criminal liability in regulatory offenses or crimes relating to public safety. This case is noteworthy because it has been cited in at least sixteen subsequent legal opinions—not only in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, [5] but also in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, [6] the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, [7] and federal district courts in California, [8] Florida, [9] Indiana, [10] Kansas, [11] and Pennsylvania. [12] This case has been cited or discussed in nearly twenty legal academic journal articles. [13] The Court of Appeals' detailed explanation of how it interprets what appears to be a specific-intent statute as something akin to a strict liability statute has merited its inclusion in a widely used Criminal Law casebook for 1L law courses. [14]

Factual background

The defendants, Michael H. Weitzenhoff and Thomas W. Mariani, were managers at East Honolulu Community Services sewage treatment plant in Hawaii. Weitzenhoff and Mariani were indicted for 31 counts of conspiracy and violating the Clean Water Act. Evidence showed that non-biodegradable waste from the treatment plant was dumped into the ocean 40 times from April 1988 to June 1989, [15] grossly exceeding the permit that limited the amount of waste allowed to be dumped into the ocean. Employees testified that they dumped the waste into the ocean during the middle of the night on orders from Weitzenhoff and Mariani. [15] The waste was removed at a point that bypassed the system that kept track of the amount of dumped waste, causing a misrepresentation of waste that was actually being dumped by the treatment plant. The waste that bypassed a part of the system was not being calculated in the total amount of waste being dumped, and was not reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the United States Department of Health. Also, the treatment plant repeatedly denied the floating debris in the nearby ocean came from them as more and more surfers complained. [15] The two managers admitted to ordering the dumping of the waste, but claimed they thought they had a permit allowing them to dump waste into the ocean.

The District Court, Judge David Alan Ezra, instructed the jury that "knowingly" meant that Weitzenhoff and Mariani knew they were dumping waste into the ocean. [16] If the jury believed that, then they would be found guilty. The jury found Weitzenhoff and Mariani guilty of six of the thirty one charges. Weitzenhoff was sentenced to 21 months in prison, and Mariani was to serve 33 months.

Ninth Circuit's opinion: the issue of intent

On appeal, the defendants argued that the judged erred in his/her interpretation of the statute and in the instruction of the jury. They argued that the judge was wrong to instruct the jury that no proof was needed to show they knew their act was unlawful, and that the judge failed to instruct the jury that the Defendants mistakenly thought they were authorized to dump the waste under a permit.

The defendants relied on Liparota v. United States [17] in their defense, case involving the fraudulent use of food stamps. There the U.S. Supreme Court had interpreted the word "knowingly" in the statute as implying actual knowledge of the legal violation. The Ninth Circuit distinguished Liparota on the grounds that it did not pertain to acts that cause public endangerment, and therefore criminal liability needed to be used more sparingly. [18] The Ninth Circuit found more applicable the case United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Corp., [19] in which the Supreme Court had held that when one handles wastes and dangerous materials, knowledge of the regulations is assumed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district Court.

Ninth Circuit's opinion: other issues

The Ninth Circuit also addressed a few other legal issued raised by Weitzenhoff and Mariani.

Expert testimony

The trial court had allowed government expert witnesses to testify at the trial about the technical terms of the treatment plant's permit, including the limitations on waste discharge into the ocean. [20] Weitzenhoff and Mariani argued that such testimony defining key terms of the permit, and explaining its prohibitions, amounted to an impermissible delegation of the trial judge's duties—it amounted to having these witnesses instruct the jury on the law rather than the judge. [20] The Ninth Circuit agreed with this argument, but held that this was harmless error on the part of the trial judge, "because, under a proper interpretation of the permit, the discharges admitted to by Weitzenhoff and Mariani necessarily violated the permit." [21]

Statutory vagueness

The defendants also argued that the statute must be unconstitutionally vague, because of the absence of a requirement that they knew they were violating the law, and the fact that key provisions of the permit, in particular those that were debated at trial, have no established meaning. [22] The Ninth Circuit considered this issue but concluded that the defendants had adequate knowledge of the illegality of their dumping, and this made the vagueness issue irrelevant as the defendants had adequate notice. [22]

Other claims

In the appeal, Weitzenhoff and Mariani also challenged the exclusion of certain evidence at trial, [23] entrapment by estoppel , [24] prosecutorial misconduct, [25] and a prolonged sentence imposed on Mariani for perjuring himself when he testified at trial. [26]

Request for rehearing (denied) and dissenting opinion

Weitzenhoff and Mariani requested a rehearing before the Ninth Circuit en banc , which the Court of Appeals denied, [1] affirming its previous decision by a three-judge panel and making minor revisions in its legal opinion.

Several judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took this opportunity to collaborate on a dissenting opinion against the decisions to deny a rehearing en banc. [27] Circuit Judge Andrew Kleinfeld authored the legal opinion for this dissent, arguing that imposing criminal liability in this case would deter others from useful careers in the public utilities. [28] Joining in this dissenting opinion were Circuit Judges Alex Kozinski, Stephen S. Trott, and T.G. Nelson.

Rejected appeal to the supreme court

Mariani and Weitzenhoof appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court, but the Court denied certiorari , [29] refusing to hear the appeal. This allowed the convictions to stand.

Related Research Articles

Acquittal The legal result of a verdict of not guilty

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction.

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense. The liability is said to be strict because defendants could be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

Milan Smith American judge

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009.

Richard M. Berman American judge

Richard Miles Berman is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952), is a U.S. Supreme Court case, relevant to the legal topic of criminal intent. It described two classes of crimes, those requiring a mental state, and those that do not. It did not delineate a precise line between them. In one class are traditional crimes, some of which have been around since before laws existed, such as stealing. This first class of crimes required a jury to find both an act, a harm, and an intent to act against the law. The second class, public welfare offenses, did not require a criminal mental state such as intent or knowledge. These included regulatory laws necessary for the public health and welfare, such as relating to food and drug safety.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

Stephen Reinhardt American judge

Stephen Roy Reinhardt was a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with chambers in Los Angeles, California. He was the last federal appeals court judge in active service to have been appointed by President Jimmy Carter.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He previously served as Chief Judge of the Second Circuit from October 1, 2006 to August 31, 2013.

D. Brooks Smith American judge

David Brookman Smith, known professionally as D. Brooks Smith, is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was previously Chief Judge of both the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and is the only judge in the history of the Third Circuit to have served as both a chief district judge and chief of the Court of Appeals. Beginning January 2022, Smith will begin to serve as Penn State Law's new jurist in residence.

Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standard for when a federal court can grant habeas corpus relief to overturn a criminal conviction based on the state court's misapplication of established federal law. At issue was whether a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when relatives of the alleged victim were permitted to sit in the courtroom as spectators during trial, wearing buttons that displayed the victim's image.

Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the level of proof required to establish the affirmative defense of duress in a federal criminal case.

<i>United States v. Kilbride</i>

United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240 is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejecting an appeal from two individuals convicted of violating the Can Spam Act and US obscenity law. The defendants were appealing convictions on 8 counts from the District Court of Arizona for distributing pornographic spam via email. The second count which the defendants were found guilty of involved the falsification of the "From" field of email headers, which is illegal to do multiple times in commercial settings under 18 USC § 1037(a)(3). The case is particularly notable because of the majority opinion on obscenity, in which Judge Fletcher writes an argument endorsing the use of a national community obscenity standard for the internet.

<i>United States v. Nosal</i> United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision

United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision dealing with the scope of criminal prosecutions of former employees under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The Ninth Circuit's first ruling established that employees have not "exceeded authorization" for the purposes of the CFAA if they access a computer in a manner that violates the company's computer use policies—if they are authorized to access the computer and do not circumvent any protection mechanisms.

<i>Woollard v. Gallagher</i>

Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

<i>United States v. Vampire Nation</i>

United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, is a 2006 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and asset forfeiture. A three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence of Frederick Banks, a Pittsburgh man, on numerous felony charges resulting from fraudulent schemes carried out over the Internet. The case takes its title, which has been singled out as memorable and included among lists of amusingly titled cases, from one of Banks' aliases, an electronic music group of which he was the sole regular member. He had filed the appeal under that name while representing himself.

<i>Martin v. Hearst Corporation</i>

Lorraine Martin v. Hearst Corporation was a defamation case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit protecting online news sources from having to remove or modify a story chronicling a person's arrest if that arrest is later erased from the record by the government using a criminal erasure statute.

Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

References

  1. 1 2 United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35F.3d1275 (9th Cir.1993).
  2. 1 2 33 U.S.C.   § 1319(c)(2)
  3. ↑ In this case, the other statute violated was 33 U.S.C.   § 1311(a), prohibiting the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters without an NPDES permit.
  4. ↑ United States v. Weitzenhoff, 1F.3d1523 , 1529–30(9th Cir.1993).
  5. ↑ United States v. Knaub, 81 F.3d 171 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Burrows, 36 F.3d 875, 882 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Ninety-Five Firearms, 28 F.3d 940, 941 (9th Cir. 1994)
  6. ↑ See, e.g., United States v. George, 386 F.3d 383, 399 (2nd Cir. 2004); United States v. Abcasis, 45 F.3d 39, 44 (2nd Cir. 1995); United States v. Corso, 20 F.3d 521, 528 (2nd Cir. 1994)
  7. ↑ United States v. Howell, 37F.3d1197 , 1204(7th Cir.1994).
  8. ↑ YKK Corp. v. Jungwoo Zipper Co., Ltd., 213F.Supp.2d1195 , 1203(C.D. Cal.2002).
  9. ↑ United States v. Florida Cities Water Co., 1995 WL 340980, *2+, 41 ERC 1541, 1541+ (M.D.Fla. Apr 26, 1995)
  10. ↑ Paradigm Sales, Inc. v. Weber Marking Systems, Inc., 880F.Supp.1247 , 1255(N.D. Ind.1995).
  11. ↑ United States v. Dudley, 1994 WL 192042, *10 (D.Kan. Apr 04, 1994)
  12. ↑ United States v. McDade, 1995 WL 476230, *2 (E.D.Pa. Aug 07, 1995); United States v. Conley, 859 F.Supp. 909, 926+ (W.D.Pa. Jul 22, 1994)
  13. ↑ See, for example, Mens Rea And Permit Interpretation Under The Clean Water Act: United States v. Weitzenhoff, 24 Envtl. L. 1351, 1370+ (1994); Environmental Audit Policy, 7 Fordham Envtl. L.J. 775, 794 (1996); Criminal Provisions Of The Clean Water Act As Interpreted By The Judiciary And The Resulting Response From The Legislature, 5 Dick. J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 399, 418 (1996); Criminal Penalties For Creating A Toxic Environment: Mens Rea, Environmental Criminal Liability Standards, And The Neurotoxicity Hypothesis, 27 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 341, 371+ (2000); Strict Criminal Liability For Environmental Violations: A Need For Judicial Restraint, 71 Ind. L.J. 729, 752+ (1996); Enforcement Of Environmental Laws In Hawai'i, 16 U. Haw. L. Rev. 85, 141 (1994); Mens Rea And The "Heightened Criminal Liability" Imposed On Violators Of The Clean Water Act, 15 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 377, 401+ (1996); Application Of The Rule Of Lenity: The Specter Of The Midnight Dumper Returns, 8 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 265, 277+ (1994).
  14. ↑ Phillip E. Johnson & Morgan Cloud, Criminal Law: Cases, Materials, and Text (7th ed. West Group 2002) p. 124.
  15. 1 2 3 Weitzenhoff, 1 F.3d at 1527–28
  16. ↑ Weitzenhoff, 1 F.3d at 1529
  17. ↑ 471 U.S. 419, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985)
  18. ↑ Weitzenhoff, 1 F.3d 1523, 1530.
  19. ↑ 402 U.S. 558, 91 S.Ct. 1697, 29 L.Ed.2d 178 (1971)
  20. 1 2 Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d at 1287
  21. ↑ Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d at 1288
  22. 1 2 Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d at 1289
  23. ↑ Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d at 1291; the defendants wanted to introduce an excerpt from the Federal Register about amendments to the regulation that the EPA had proposed but never adopted.
  24. ↑ Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d at 1291. The court of appeals found no evidence to support such a claim.
  25. ↑ Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d at 1291. This allegation was connected to the prosecutor's use of expert testimony mentioned above.
  26. ↑ Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d at 1292.
  27. ↑ Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d at 1293
  28. ↑ Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d at 1293 ("We have now made felons of a large number of innocent people doing socially valuable work. They are innocent, because the one thing which makes their conduct felonious is something they do not know.")
  29. ↑ Mariani v. U.S.513 U.S. 1128, 115 S.Ct. 939 (1995)(Mem.)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.