THIS ANSWER IS LOCKED!
You can view this answer by clicking here to Register or Login and paying $3.
If you've already paid for this answer, simply Login.

Sir/madam

I herewith submit the answer

with regards
atluri ramesh

-------------------------


ASSIGNMENT
Review the Capstone case U.S. v. Hanousek. What is the issue the court had to decide? What was the court’s ruling and rationale? Do you agree with the court? Why, or why not? Should simple negligence be a basis for criminal liability? written response question should contain a minimum 200-300 word response.

ANSWER
CASE DETAILS
Case Name : United States v. Hanousek
Authority : U.S.Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999, SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES
Case No. : 99-323
Nature of petition: Writ petition for the orders of Certiorari
Petitioner : XXXXX XXXXXousek, Jr
Decided: Decided on January 10, 2010 stating denial of writ petition.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner XXXXX XXXXXousek, Jr was employed by the Pacific & Arctic Railway and Navigation Company (Pacific & Arctic). As part of the duty of road master, the petitioner was responsible for every safe and efficient maintenance and construction of track. One of the project namely “6mile” was also under supervision. On October 1, 1994, there was incident that caused 1,000 to 5,000 gallons of oil were discharged to adjacent Skagway River which is navigable water of the United States. It is found that Hanousek negligently discharged duties that was harmful which is violation of Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319 (c) (1) (A) and 1321 (b) (3). Besides he was also charged conspiracy by giving false information to United States Coast Guard officials which is also violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, 1001. Based on the facts, the District Court imposed sentence of six months of imprisonment, six months in a halfway house and six months of supervised release besides fine of $5,000. Challenging the same, the petitioner made an appeal with the Supreme Court.
FINDINGS OF COURT
The petitioner contended that that District court tried to establish the violation of 33 U.S.C. 1319 ( c ) (1) (A) where the Hanousek did not acted with criminal negligence. His contention, that the said negligence is not criminal negligence and it may be ordinary negligence that was caused harmful quantity of oil into the Skagway River. Based on the Hanousek’s objection, the district court instructed the jury and the government is required to prove Hanousek acted negligently.

Section 1319 ( c) (1) (A) clearly provided that any person who negligently violated 33 U.S.C. 1321 (b) (3) shall be punished by fine or imprisonment or both. Here it should be noted that it is linked with negligent. The criminal provisions of CWA are designed to protect the public at large for consequences of pollution. The said incident was clearly falls within the category of public welfare legislation. Hence it was concluded the conviction was provided on the basis of own negligence of the petitioner. Hence the judgment given by the district is confirmed and certiorari cannot be granted.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner cannot simply tell that simply he was road master and did not know the laws of CWA (Clean Water Act). As long as he works in such responsible position must also be alter with the strict regulation. Though it is ordinary negligence, yet it was connected with criminal negligence as the public suffered at large. Hence District court’s decision is correct and Supreme Court denial on Certiorari is also welcome. Yes simple negligence also attract criminal liability.

REFERENCE :
1. http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2426/2484551/CJ140_Ch02.pdf
2. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-323.ZD.html



Edited by atluriram on 10/21/2010 at 3:00 AM EST