Women Criminal Defense Attorneys: Yates Case Argued Before the Supreme Court

Last week, the Supreme Court heard argument in U.S. v. Yates, which addresses the use of the Sarbanes Oxley destruction of evidence statute to prosecute a Florida man relating to the destruction of fish. Yes you read correctly… fish.

John L. Yates was charged in federal court in Tampa Florida under the Sarbanes-Oxley’s “anti-shredding provision” for destroying fish when he was stopped and it was discovered that he had 72 red grouper, a protected species, that were under the federal 20-inch limit, on board his fishing vessel. He was cited, the fish were boxed up, and he was instructed to bring them to the official when he docked. When he did, the box contained only 69 fish. One of the crewmembers later stated he was instructed by Yates to throw three fish overboard. Yates’ attorney filed motions arguing that the Sarbanes-Oxley statute only applied to the destruction of documents and not to fish, which were denied. Yates went to trial and was found guilty. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail but was facing twenty years in prison. Yes, you read correctly… twenty years for destroying three fish.

His lead counsel is the Federal Defender for the Middle District of Florida, Donna Lee Elm.Shewas quoted as saying "This is a statute relating to records, including tangible objects related to records. A fish does not contain records. One cannot make a false entry in a fish."

Read the Scotus Blog entry titled Justices Take the measure of a fish in plain English, which is a great summary of the intense questions and comments from the Justices. For once I was cheering Scalia on as he peppered the Government with questions like, “What kind of mad prosecutor… would ask for twenty years in prison for destroying fish?” We all have had the misfortune of dealing with absurd cases in our careers but I must admit this one takes the cake. What an absolute waste of governmental resources to prosecute this man in this instance.

Stay tuned for a decision in June. Whatever the holding, Yates will have a profound impact on our criminal justice system. If the Supreme Court upholds the application of this statute in this instance, the use of what has become commonly known as the “anti-shredding provision” of Sarbanes-Oxley will have endless applications.