United States v. John L. Yates
733 F.3d 1059
11th Cir.2013Background
- On Aug. 23, 2007, Officer Jones (a Florida officer deputized to enforce federal fisheries law) boarded the commercial fishing vessel Miss Katie and measured red grouper; he identified 72 fish as under the federal 20-inch minimum and placed clearly undersized fish in wooden crates for seizure.
- Captain John L. Yates ordered the crew to throw the identified fish overboard and to replace them in the crates with other fish; he instructed crew to tell officers the crate fish were the same ones previously measured.
- When re-measured at dock, 69 fish were under 20 inches but generally measured closer to 20 inches than those Jones had measured at sea; crewmember Thomas Lemons later admitted to the on-board switch.
- Yates was charged and convicted of (1) knowingly disposing of undersized fish to prevent government seizure (18 U.S.C. § 2232(a)) and (2) destroying/concealing a tangible object with intent to impede an investigation (18 U.S.C. § 1519); he was sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment and 36 months’ supervised release.
- At trial Yates disputed whether the fish were undersized (arguing measurement with mouths open might render them legal); a Daubert hearing considered two experts on measurement differences, but Yates failed to timely disclose one expert (Dr. Cody) and was precluded from calling him in his case-in-chief.
- The jury convicted; Yates appealed on sufficiency of evidence (fish size), statutory meaning of “tangible object,” and preclusion of Dr. Cody’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yates) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that thrown fish were undersized | Measuring only with mouths closed leaves doubt; fish might be legal if measured mouth-open | Officer Jones’s measurements, admissions by Yates, crew testimony, and inferences from Yates’s conduct permit conviction | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for jury to find fish undersized |
| Whether a fish is a “tangible object” under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 | “Tangible object” limited to records/documents or items related to recordkeeping; statute ambiguous so apply rule of lenity | Ordinary meaning of tangible object includes physical items like fish; statute unambiguous | Affirmed — a fish is a tangible object; rule of lenity inapplicable |
| Preclusion of untimely expert (Dr. Cody) under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C) | Preclusion was excessive and violated right to present defense; Dr. Cody would corroborate Mr. Ward and rehabilitate him | Disclosure was untimely; sanction of preclusion within trial court’s discretion and defendant had similar expert testimony from Mr. Ward | Affirmed — no reversible prejudice; Mr. Ward gave comparable testimony, and exclusion did not violate substantial-rights standard |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pena, 684 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993) (give undefined statutory words their ordinary meaning)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (right to present a defense is not absolute; limits where discovery rules violated)
- United States v. Mintmire, 507 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.) (reasonable-inference standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Carrell, 252 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir.) (plain-meaning statutory construction principles)
- United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir.) (district court discretion in discovery-sanction decisions)