United States v. Weitzenhoff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1993)[1] 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.[2] The main significance of the court's opinion was that it interpreted the word "knowingly" in the statute[2] (that is, a requirement that the violator "knowingly" violated another section of the environmental statute[3]) 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.[4] Circuit Court Judge Betty Binns Fletcher authored the majority's legal opinion in this case.
United States v. Weitzenhoff | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
Full case name | United States of America v. Michael H. Weitzenhoff; Thomas W. Mariani |
Argued | Jan. 11, 1993 |
Decided | August 3, 1993 |
Citation(s) | 1 F.3d 1523; 38 ERC 1365; 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,322 |
Case history | |
Subsequent history | Amended on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, 35 F.3d 1275; 24 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,504, August 8, 1994; cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1128, 115 S.Ct. 939 (1995) |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Alfred Goodwin, Betty Binns Fletcher, Marilyn L. Huff (S.D. Cal.) |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Fletcher, joined by Goodwin, Huff |
Dissent | Kleinfeld (dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc), joined by Reinhardt, Kozinski, Trott, Nelson |
Laws applied | |
Clean Water Act |
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,[5] but also in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,[6] the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,[7] and federal district courts in California,[8] Florida,[9] Indiana,[10] Kansas,[11] and Pennsylvania.[12] This case has been cited or discussed in nearly twenty legal academic journal articles.[13] 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.[14]