Assignment 1-Divya Dhamija PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Assignment 1-Divya Dhamija PDF

Description

Name- Divya Dhamija Course- Legal, Ethical and Social Env Program- EX-MS-PM Case Brief -1 Yates v. U.S. 135 S.Ct. 1074 (2015) FACTS: J ohn 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: Y  ates was convicted and appealed. His conviction was upheld. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. ISSUE ON APPEAL: I s 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. Using information from this week's readings and academic sources, answer the following questions in 500 words (minimum): ● Explain what Mr. Yates did and why.

Mr. Yates was leading a fishing expedition when his vessel the Miss Katie was boarded by a Florida wildlife fishing law officer. He noticed that three red grouper on the boat were shorter than recommended government dimensions. When he started measuring the rest of them, he noticed that a large number of fish were smaller in the size which he decided to separate into crates. Mr Yates, who was leading this wanted to save himself from the repercussions so he disposed the undersized fish into the water and replaced the crate with larger fish. The federal officer noticed this foul play and cover up. The government punished Mr Yates under the section 1519. The government took the position stating that fish is a “tangible object” within the meaning of statute and Yates had intentionally destroyed or tampered evidence which made him a felon. Yates was convicted but he moved to dismiss the charges in reference to the term “tangible object”. A tangible object is anything physical like a document or a hard drive. It cannot be used for fish. The court held the statue after he appeal that tangible objects can only be a physical form such as files or documents and cannot be used for fish. Hence the decision was reversed. ● Describe the terms used in the statute at issue and the history of the statute. The terms used in the statute indicated that any physical, financial or hard drive should be considered as a “tangible object”. If any tangible object is damaged, destroyed or tampered at any point of time, the court shall consider that as obstruction of justice. Such cases or persons responsible should be eligible for conviction or fine or imprisonment or both. The court was not able to clarify the definition of “tangible object”. At first the court took the position that fish can be a tangible object and since Mr Yates tried to toss the undersized fish into the sea he shall be convicted of felony. Mr Yates appealed to a higher court and the decision was upheld. The meaning of the statute unclear due to the statute’s list of nouns, its list of verbs, and the title. According to Section 1519, When a statute contains a list , each word in the list has a presumptively meaning which can be or can not be related to the context. The criminal law prohibits tampering, destroying any document or tangible object. The question is that if the word “ tangible object” means the same thing in the law than in everyday life. The plurality searches wide

for the meaning of the term but fishing is not a part of it. When Congress passed the act it was meant to serve any shredding of the documents which could be used as evidence. Mr Yates’s opinion differed since his act was different than what he was allegedly caught doing.

● Why does the dissent think the majority made the decision it did? The term “tangible object” has a wide meaning in everyday life. Dissent argued that Yates was convicted throughout the United states code tangible objects cannot be alike in everyday life. According to Congress, lawbreakers who dump the fish and who destroy any kind of tangible object will be treated the same way which is not fair. The law states that under Section 1519 any kind of tangible object refers to physical record, hard drive or documents and not include fish....