|
''United States v. Weitzenhoff''〔35 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir.1993)〕 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.〔33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2).〕 The main significance of the court's opinion was that it interpreted the word "knowingly" in the statute〔33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2)〕 (that is, a requirement that the violator "knowingly" violated another section of the environmental statute〔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.〕) 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.〔''Weitzenhoff'', 1 F.3d at 1529–30.〕 Circuit Court Judge Betty Binns Fletcher authored the majority's legal opinion in this case. 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,〔U.S. v. Knaub, 81 F.3d 171, 171+ (9th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Burrows, 36 F.3d 875, 882 (9th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Ninety-Five Firearms, 28 F.3d 940, 941 (9th Cir. 1994)〕 but also in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,〔See, e.g., U.S. v. George, 386 F.3d 383, 399 (2nd Cir. 2004); U.S. v. Abcasis, 45 F.3d 39, 44 (2nd Cir. 1995); U.S. v. Corso, 20 F.3d 521, 528 (2nd Cir. 1994)〕 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,〔U.S. v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204+ (7th Cir. 1994)〕 and federal district courts in California,〔YKK Corp. v. Jungwoo Zipper Co., Ltd., 213 F.Supp.2d 1195, 1203 (C.D.Cal. Aug 08, 2002)〕 Florida,〔U.S. v. Florida Cities Water Co., 1995 WL 340980, *2+, 41 ERC 1541, 1541+ (M.D.Fla. Apr 26, 1995)〕 Indiana,〔Paradigm Sales, Inc. v. Weber Marking Systems, Inc., 880 F.Supp. 1247, 1255 (N.D.Ind. Mar 16, 1995)〕 Kansas,〔U.S. v. Dudley, 1994 WL 192042, *10 (D.Kan. Apr 04, 1994)〕 and Pennsylvania.〔U.S. v. McDade, 1995 WL 476230, *2 (E.D.Pa. Aug 07, 1995); U.S. v. Conley, 859 F.Supp. 909, 926+ (W.D.Pa. Jul 22, 1994)〕 This case has been cited or discussed in nearly twenty legal academic journal articles.〔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).〕 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.〔Phillip E. Johnson & Morgan Cloud, Criminal Law: Cases, Materials, and Text (7th ed. West Group 2002) p. 124.〕 ==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,〔''Weitzenhoff'', 1 F.3d at 1527–28〕 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.〔Id.〕 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.〔Id.〕 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 instructed the jury that “knowingly” meant that Weitzenhoff and Mariani knew they were dumping waste into the ocean.〔See id. at p. 1529.〕 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Weitzenhoff」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|