Usually when a fisherman tells a fish story, he makes the fish as big as he can carry. But on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case about a fisherman convicted of deep-sixing some fish altogether so no one could accurately check their size.
The question before the justices is whether his conviction, based on a law passed after a scandal that destroyed energy firm Enron and resulted in criminal convictions for accounting firm Arthur Andersen, should get the hook.
Commercial fisherman John Yates and his crew were fishing for grouper in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico when Florida Fish and Wildlife officer John Jones boarded the boat. Jones, suspecting that the fishermen were keeping fish smaller than the 20-inch minimum, measured some of the catch and found 72 grouper that were undersized. As fisherman Yates tells the story, he got "a citation for short fish; it's like a speeding ticket."
Jones, who had been deputized as a federal officer, ordered the fish kept, but when the boat arrived on shore he determined that the fish in the crate were not the same ones he had measured. Yates professes surprise at what happened down the line.
"Three years later, all of a sudden they come with bulletproof vests and guns. They put me in handcuffs and they took me to jail," he says.
The government tells a very different story. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli says the state inspector put the undersized fish in a crate on board Captain Yates' boat and instructed him to bring the box back to shore, where he would be met by federal authorities.
Verrilli says that once the state inspector had left the boat, Yates instructed one of his crew: "Take that crate of fish, dump it overboard, and replace it with fish that were no longer undersized. And then the employee got back on shore and he ratted out his boss."
Yates was convicted of destroying evidence to impede a federal investigation and sentenced to 30 days in jail. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, contending that the law used to prosecute him was meant to apply to documents and records, not fish. He has a small army of supporters, particularly in the business community.
The federal government, however, argues that the law was clearly written and intended to be a broad anti-obstruction-of-justice law that would fill gaps in the criminal code that had long existed. The text of the law makes it a crime to destroy, alter or cover up "any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to ... impede or obstruct" the investigation of "any matter" within federal jurisdiction.
The government looks at that language and says the plain meaning covers more than just financial records. Indeed, for more than a decade, federal prosecutors have used the statute in obstruction cases involving everything from terrorism to environmental safety violations; the "tangible object" that defendants sought to alter or destroy has included human bodies, bloodstains, guns, drugs, cash and automobiles. Most recently, the statute was used to win the conviction of a Boston man for helping the accused Boston Marathon bomber conceal physical evidence of his crime.
At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Assistant Public Defender John Badalamenti, representing captain Yates, will tell the justices that the government's argument is a huge overreach.
"This statute does not cover the destruction of anything but records or documents," he says. Indeed, he notes, the title of this section of the law is "Destruction and Alteration of Records" and, he contends, the purpose of the law was to prevent and punish obstruction in the financial industry.
"I would not dispute that anything can be a tangible object under the broadest dictionary definition. But they have to be read in the context of all the words that Congress legislated," Badalamenti says.
Supporting the argument and opposing the government's position is a phalanx of business organizations, as well as defense and civil liberties lawyers. They contend that if the Court upholds the government's broad reading of the statute, it will give prosecutors the power to seek penalties of up to 20 years in prison if an individual destroys any object, no matter how trivial, with the intent of obstructing a federal investigation.
The government replies that the "records only" argument would make it a crime for a murderer to destroy his victim's diary, but not the murder weapon.
9(MDE1MTIxMDg0MDE0MDQ3NTY3MzkzMzY1NA001))
Transcript
DAVID GREENE, HOST:
We are reporting on big changes in the U.S. Congress after last night's election. Let's move across the street from the Capitol to another branch of government - the U.S. Supreme Court, which is grappling with a case about fish. Here's NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.
NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: Commercial fisherman John Yates and his crew were fishing for grouper in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico when Florida Fish and Wildlife Officer John Jones boarded the boat. Jones, suspecting that the fishermen were keeping fish smaller than the 20-inch minimum, measured some of the catch and found 72 grouper that were undersized. As fisherman Yates tells the story...
JOHN YATES: So he writes me a citation for short fish. It's like a speeding ticket.
TOTENBERG: When the boat got to shore, investigators determined that the fish in the crate were not the same ones that had been measured.
YATES: Three years later all of a sudden they come to my door, with bulletproof vests and guns. They put me in handcuffs. They take me to jail.
TOTENBERG: The government tells a very different story. Speaking at a public event, Solicitor General Don Verrilli said the state inspector put the undersized fish in a crate and instructed Captain Yates to bring the box back to shore where he would be met by federal authorities.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
DON VERRILLI: What the commercial fisherman did after the state inspector left was to instruct one of his employees to take that crate of fish and dump it overboard and replace it with fish that were no longer undersized.
(LAUGHTER)
VERRILLI: And the employee did that and then he got back to shore, and he ratted out his boss.
TOTENBERG: Yates was convicted of destroying evidence to impede a federal investigation and sentenced to 30 days in jail. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court contending that the law used to prosecute him was meant to apply to documents and records and not fish. He has a small army of supporters, particularly in the business community. In fact the law used to prosecute Yates was enacted by Congress in the wake of the Enron scandal and abuses in the accounting industry. The federal government, however, contends it was clearly written and intended to be a broad, anti-obstruction of justice law that would fill gaps in the criminal code that had long existed.
The law makes it a crime to destroy, alter or cover up any record, document or tangible object with the intent to impede or obstruct the investigation of any matter within federal jurisdiction. The government looks at that language and says the plain meaning of the words is to cover more than just financial records. For more than a decade it's used the law to prosecute everything from terrorism to environmental safety laws using as evidence the destruction of tangible objects such as human bodies, bloodstains, guns, drugs, cash and automobiles. Most recently the statute was used to win the conviction of a Boston man for helping the accused Boston Marathon bomber conceal physical evidence. But fisherman Yates, represented by assistant public defender John Badalementi, maintains that the government's argument is a huge overreach.
JOHN BADALEMENTI: This statute does not cover the destruction of anything but records or documents.
TOTENBERG: Indeed he notes the title of this section of the law is Destruction and Alteration of Records. And the purpose of the law was to prevent and punish obstruction in the financial industry.
BADALEMENTI: I would not dispute that anything can be a tangible object under the broadest dictionary definition, but they have to be read within the context of all the words that Congress legislated.
TOTENBERG: Supporting this argument and opposing the government's position is a phalanx of business organizations as well as defense and civil liberties lawyers. They contend that if the court upholds the government's broad reading of statute, it would give prosecutors the power to seek penalties of up to 20 years in prison if an individual destroys any object, no matter how trivial, with the intent of obstructing a federal investigation. The government replies that the records-only argument would make it a crime for a murderer to destroy his victim's diary, but not the murder weapon. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
300x250 Ad
300x250 Ad