MAGGIE FIELD | SUN
Local fisherman John Yates has taken his
case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
CORTEZ – What does a dead grouper have in common with a falsified financial document?
That’s the question that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider when it hears the appeal of commercial fisherman John Yates.
The high court announced Monday morning that it would consider Yates’ appeal of his 2011 conviction in Fort Myers federal court of disposing of evidence to prevent seizure and destroying evidence to impede or obstruct a federal investigation.
Fisheries officers testified at trial that in the 2007 arrest, they boarded the “Miss Katie” in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico, found 72 undersized red grouper and told Yates, then 59, to leave the fish on board as evidence and return to Cortez, where the fish were to be seized.
Three fish were missing when the catch was counted at the dock, accounting to court records.
The U.S. Attorney’s office prosecuting the case charged Yates under a federal statute prohibiting destruction of evidence. The statute was passed in response to the corporate accounting fraud of Enron, which led to its bankruptcy and infamy as the “Enron scandal.”
“Yates was charged under a corporate fraud statute intended to safeguard investors in public corporations,” said Yates’ attorney, John Badalamenti, adding that there is no distinction in the law between 69 and 72 undersized fish, and therefore no reason to dispose of three.
In granting Yates’ writ of certiorari, the court said it will consider whether Yates was notified by the officers that destroying fish would be a violation of the statute, which states: “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.”
Yates served 30 days.
The court’s decision to hear the appeal “is an excellent development for Mr. Yates,” Badalamenti said on Monday.
The primary issue is whether the term “tangible object” applies to fish, since the term was not defined by Congress when it wrote the statute, and appears in reference to recordkeeping, not fishing, he said, adding that the lower court ruled that fish are “tangible objects.”
“The case is really about when Congress doesn’t define a term; do you look at the dictionary or do you look at it in the context of the statute?” he said. “Fish are not like documents, they’re just fish.”
Yates said he was advised by his attorney not to comment on the proceedings. He maintained at trial that the fish were not measured correctly.
His wife, Sandy Yates, said that if the appeal is successful, they plan to sue for wrongful prosecution.
The case will be scheduled for hearing in October or November, Badalamenti said.