U.S. justices leaning toward letting fisherman off the hook

By Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed a desire on Wednesday to reel in the federal government for prosecuting a Florida fisherman under a white-collar crime law for disposing of undersized red grouper fish while he was under investigation. During a one-hour oral argument in the case, a majority of the court seemed inclined to rule in favor of fisherman John Yates. But it remained unclear how the justices would write such a ruling, with some not appearing to buy his arguments hook, line and sinker. Yates could have faced a 20-year prison sentence after being convicted under a records-keeping provision of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed by Congress to guard against corporate fraud of the sort committed by companies including Enron Corp and WorldCom Inc. He was ultimately sentenced to 30 days in prison. Several justices appeared concerned that the U.S. Justice Department interpreted the law too broadly. It penalizes the destruction, concealment or covering up of "any record, document or tangible object." Justice Anthony Kennedy joked that if Congress had wanted the law to cover more than just white-collar fraud, it could have been called the "Sarbanes-Oxley-Grouper Act." The case began in August 2007 when officials measured fish on Yates's boat and found that 72 were smaller than permitted, violating federal fishing regulations. A crew member testified at trial that Yates ordered him to throw the undersized fish overboard and replace them with larger ones. Yates later told officials they were the same fish that had been inspected earlier. The justices were critical of the Justice Department's decision to prosecute Yates. Justice Antonin Scalia wondered "what kind of mad prosecutor would try to send this guy up for 20 years?" Justice Samuel Alito also took the bait, saying the law gives the government license to prosecute over seemingly "trivial matters." Along similar lines, Chief Justice John Roberts said the prosecution made it appear the government viewed Yates as "a mob boss or something." Justice Elena Kagan indicated she might be satisfied that the law was intended to cover a wide range of conduct, saying its broad language "shows that it's not just about corporate fraud." The court could tackle the problem by ruling the law applies only to record-keeping in the corporate context, meaning Yates would be off the hook. Such a decision could mirror a case from June in which the court ruled that a Pennsylvania woman could not be convicted under a chemical weapons law for trying to poison her husband's pregnant lover. [ID:nL1N0OJ0RY] Yates, who lives in Holmes Beach south of Tampa, was convicted in 2011 on two of three charges, including one under the record-keeping provision. Even if Yates wins before the Supreme Court, his conviction on the other count of preventing the government from taking custody of the fish would remain intact. In August 2013, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction. A decision is due by the end of June. The case is United States v. Yates, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-7451. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)