United States v. Weitzenhoff
Encyclopedia
United States v. Weitzenhoff 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. The main significance of the court's opinion was that it interpreted the word "knowingly" in the statute
(that is, a requirement that the violator "knowingly" violated another section of the environmental statute
) 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. 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, but also in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and federal district courts in California
, Florida
, Indiana
, Kansas
, and Pennsylvania
. This case has been cited or discussed in nearly twenty legal academic journal
articles.
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.
. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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.
, 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 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 endagerment, and therefore criminal liability needed to be used more sparingly. The Ninth Circuit found more applicable the case United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Corp., 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.
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."
, prosecutorial misconduct, and a prolonged sentence imposed on Mariani for perjuring himself when he testified at trial.
, which the Court of Appeals denied, 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. 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. Joining in this dissenting opinion were Circuit Judges Alex Kozinski
, Stephen S. Trott, and T.G. Nelson.
, refusing to hear the appeal. This allowed the convictions to stand.
Legal opinion
In law, an opinion is usually a written explanation by a judge or group of judges that accompanies an order or ruling in a case, laying out the rationale and legal principles for the ruling....
from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that addresses the confusing mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
requirement of a federal environmental law
Environmental law
Environmental law is a complex and interlocking body of treaties, conventions, statutes, regulations, and common law that operates to regulate the interaction of humanity and the natural environment, toward the purpose of reducing the impacts of human activity...
that imposed criminal sanctions on certain polluters. The main significance of the court's opinion was that it interpreted the word "knowingly" in the statute
Statute
A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations...
(that is, a requirement that the violator "knowingly" violated another section of the environmental statute
Statute
A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations...
) 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. Circuit Court Judge Betty Binns Fletcher
Betty Binns Fletcher
Betty Binns Fletcher is an American lawyer and judge. She has served as a federal judge on the San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since 1979.-Early life and education:...
authored the majority's legal opinion
Legal opinion
In law, an opinion is usually a written explanation by a judge or group of judges that accompanies an order or ruling in a case, laying out the rationale and legal principles for the ruling....
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, but also in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and federal district courts in California
California
California is a state located on the West Coast of the United States. It is by far the most populous U.S. state, and the third-largest by land area...
, Florida
Florida
Florida is a state in the southeastern United States, located on the nation's Atlantic and Gulf coasts. It is bordered to the west by the Gulf of Mexico, to the north by Alabama and Georgia and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean. With a population of 18,801,310 as measured by the 2010 census, it...
, Indiana
Indiana
Indiana is a US state, admitted to the United States as the 19th on December 11, 1816. It is located in the Midwestern United States and Great Lakes Region. With 6,483,802 residents, the state is ranked 15th in population and 16th in population density. Indiana is ranked 38th in land area and is...
, Kansas
Kansas
Kansas is a US state located in the Midwestern United States. It is named after the Kansas River which flows through it, which in turn was named after the Kansa Native American tribe, which inhabited the area. The tribe's name is often said to mean "people of the wind" or "people of the south...
, and Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a U.S. state that is located in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. The state borders Delaware and Maryland to the south, West Virginia to the southwest, Ohio to the west, New York and Ontario, Canada, to the north, and New Jersey to...
. This case has been cited or discussed in nearly twenty legal academic journal
Academic journal
An academic journal is a peer-reviewed periodical in which scholarship relating to a particular academic discipline is published. Academic journals serve as forums for the introduction and presentation for scrutiny of new research, and the critique of existing research...
articles.
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
Strict liability
In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability...
statute has merited its inclusion in a widely used Criminal Law
Criminal law
Criminal law, is the body of law that relates to crime. It might be defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is not allowed because it is held to threaten, harm or endanger the safety and welfare of people, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on people who do not obey...
casebook
Casebook
A casebook is a type of textbook used primarily by students in law schools. Rather than simply laying out the legal doctrine in a particular area of study, a casebook contains excerpts from legal cases in which the law of that area was applied. It is then up to the student to analyze the language...
for 1L
Law school in the United States
In the United States, a law school is an institution where students obtain a professional education in law after first obtaining an undergraduate degree.Law schools in the U.S...
law courses.
Factual background
The defendants, Michael H. Weitzenhoff and Thomas W. Mariani, were managers at East Honolulu Community Services sewage treatment plant in HawaiiHawaii
Hawaii is the newest of the 50 U.S. states , and is the only U.S. state made up entirely of islands. It is the northernmost island group in Polynesia, occupying most of an archipelago in the central Pacific Ocean, southwest of the continental United States, southeast of Japan, and northeast of...
. Weitzenhoff and Mariani were indicted for 31 counts of conspiracy and violating the Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Commonly abbreviated as the CWA, the act established the goals of eliminating releases of high amounts of toxic substances into water, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that...
. Evidence showed that non-biodegradable waste from the treatment plant was dumped into the ocean 40 times from April 1988 to June 1989, 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. 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
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress...
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. 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. 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 appealAppeal
An appeal is a petition for review of a case that has been decided by a court of law. The petition is made to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision....
, 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 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 endagerment, and therefore criminal liability needed to be used more sparingly. The Ninth Circuit found more applicable the case United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Corp., 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. 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. The Ninth Circuit agreed with this argument, but held that this was harmless errorHarmless error
A harmless error is a ruling by a trial judge that, although mistaken, does not meet the burden for a losing party to reverse the original decision of the trier of fact on appeal, or to warrant a new trial. Harmless error is easiest to understand in an evidentiary context...
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."
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. 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.Other claims
In the appeal, Weitzenhoff and Mariani also challenged the exclusion of certain evidence at trial, entrapment by estoppelEstoppel
Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative...
, prosecutorial misconduct, and a prolonged sentence imposed on Mariani for perjuring himself when he testified at trial.
Request for rehearing (denied) and dissenting opinion
Weitzenhoff and Mariani requested a rehearing before the Ninth Circuit en bancEn banc
En banc, in banc, in banco or in bank is a French term used to refer to the hearing of a legal case where all judges of a court will hear the case , rather than a panel of them. It is often used for unusually complex cases or cases considered to be of greater importance...
, which the Court of Appeals denied, 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. 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. Joining in this dissenting opinion were Circuit Judges Alex Kozinski
Alex Kozinski
Alex Kozinski is Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, an essayist, and a judicial commentator.-Biography:...
, 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 certiorariCertiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
, refusing to hear the appeal. This allowed the convictions to stand.