A couple 2305 students have proposed looking at Yates v United States.
- Click here for Scotusblog's page on the case.
The case involves a creative use of a provision that stems from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (AKA the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act" - in the Senate - and "Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act" - in the House), which was passed in the wake of the co-scandals of Enron and Worldcom.
Fro a refresher on each, here are some links to the relevant Wikipedia pages:
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
- Enron.
- Worldcom.
The act made it a crime - punishable by a prison term of up to 20 years if someone ""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" a federal investigation."
The key phrase is "tangible object."
The question the court faced was whether this provision - which was intended to apply to corporate records, could be applicable to fish. A commercial fisherman was being inspected by a federal agent and he instructed the crew to throw over undersized fish. The court was asked to consider whether doing so violated the act.
The question the court wrestled with was what "tangible object" meant. Did the phrase refer to an object that could contain information (like accounting records) or something you could touch - like a . . . . fish? The narrowly ruled that it referred to the former. The case against the fisherman was overturned - thrown overboard.
For the student's looking at this case, the question will be what angle you propose taking.
