Question

FACTS:  John Yates, a commercial fisherman, caught undersized red grouper in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. To prevent federal authorities from confirming that he had harvested undersized fish, Yates ordered a crew member to toss the suspect fish into the sea. Yates was charged with obstruction of justice through destruction of the small red grouper fish.

DECISIONS BELOW: Yates was convicted and appealed. His conviction was upheld.  He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

ISSUE ON APPEAL: Is the release of fish back into the sea obstruction of justice?

DECISION: A split court held that the fish were not “tangible objects” for purposes of the obstruction of justice statute.  The court held that the statute was passed to cover files and electronic records and not tangible objects such as fish. The court held that the statute was passed in the wake of financial and ethical collapses in companies and was not intended to have generic application. It was directed at electronic files and documentation, not tangible objects such as fish.

Explain what Mr. Yates did and why.

Describe the terms used in the statute at issue and the history of the statute.

Why does the dissent think the majority made the decision it did?

Answer 1

Explain what Mr. Yates did and why?

Ans: John Yates, a commercial fisherman, caught undersized red grouper in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. To prevent federal authorities from confirming that he had harvested undersized fish, Yates ordered a crew member to toss the suspect fish into the sea.

Describe the terms used in the statute at issue and the history of the statute?

For this offense, he was charged with, and convicted of, violating 18 U. S. C. 1519, which provides, Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. Section 1519 was enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 116Stat. 745, legislation designed to protect investors and restore trust in financial markets following the collapse of Enron Corporation. A fish is no doubt an object that is tangible; fish can be seen, caught, and handled, and a catch, as this case illustrates, is vulnerable to destruction. But it would cut 1519 loose from its financial-fraud mooring to hold that it encompasses any and all objects, whatever their size or significance, destroyed with obstructive intent. Mindful that in Sarbanes-Oxley, Congress trained its attention on corporate and accounting deception and cover-ups, we conclude that a matching construction of 1519 is in order: A tangible object captured by 1519, we hold, must be one used to record or preserve information.

Why does the dissent think the majority made the decision it did?

Because the dissent also believes that the rule of the law which controls this case is right and so nothing can be done against it