Saturday, May 4, 2013

United States v. Weitzenhoff case brief

United States v. Weitzenhoff case brief
35 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1994)

CASE SYNOPSIS: 
Defendant managers of a sewage treatment plant appealed from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
The Hawaii court convicted them of violating the Clean Water Act.
These violations included 33 U.S.C.S. §§ 1311(a), 1319(c)(2), 1319(c)(4) and 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2, 371. One defendant also challenged an upward adjustment of his sentence for obstruction of justice due to his perjury during the trial.

FACTS: 

The defendant managers of a sewage treatment plant instructed employees to dispose of waste activated sludge directly into the ocean at night. 

HOLDING/RULING
The Defendants were convicted of violating the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.S., and the court affirmed their convictions. 

DISCUSSION

  • The government did not need to prove that defendants knew that their acts violated either the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit or the CWA. 
  • Criminal sanctions were appropriate if defendants knowingly engaged in conduct that resulted in permit violations. 
  • The district court's admission of expert testimony on contested issues of law in lieu of instructing the jury was harmless error. 
  • The permits were not unconstitutionally vague. 
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence, and a jury instruction on entrapment was not warranted. 
  • Although certain testimony and prosecutorial remarks were of questionable relevance, they did not materially affect the verdict or rendered the trial unfair considered in the context of the entire proceeding. 
  • Finally, the district court's upward adjustment in one defendant's sentence due to his perjurious testimony was not clearly erroneous.


CONCLUSION: The court affirmed defendant managers' convictions for authorizing the illegal disposal of waste into the ocean in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The government did not need to prove that defendants knew that their acts violated either a permit or the CWA as long as it established that defendants knowingly engaged in the conduct. The court also affirmed the upward adjustment of one defendant's sentence due to his perjurious testimony.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?


No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads

https://www.pexels.com/photo/coworkers-talking-outside-4427818/ Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...