April 23, 2014 — As Stetson University College of Law Professor Ellen Podgor notes over at the White Collar Crime Prof Blog, that’s the question in Yates vs. U.S., an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of the conviction of a commercial fisherman accused of destroying undersized fish he caught in the Gulf of Mexico.
John L. Yates was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1519, better known as the “anti-shredding provision” of Sarbanes-Oxley designed to discourage people from engaging in the sort of evidence-destruction frenzy that took place in the waning days of Enron. But fish?
Yates, it seems, was busted by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission for having 72 undersized red grouper on his vessel, and issued a civil citation. But when he returned to port, there were only 69 on board. He was accused of throwing three of the shorties overboard — shredding the evidence, in the eyes of an aggressive prosecutor who indicted him several years later.
Yates argued the Florida game wardens never measured his catch the right way in the first place. But a jury disagreed, convicting him of two criminal counts. Specifically, the jury said Yates “did knowingly destroy, conceal and cover up `undersized fish’ with the intent `to impede, obstruct and influence the investigation and proper catching of red grouper under the legal minimum size limit,’” in violation of the anti-shredding act. No shredder need be involved, apparently.