From our private database of 39,700+ case briefs...
United States v. Sinskey
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
119 F.3d 712 (1997)
Facts
Sinskey (defendant) was the plant manager at the meatpacking plant John Morrell & Co. (Morrell). Kumm (defendant) was the plant engineer. The meatpacking process created wastewater, which was treated at Morrell’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and then discharged into the river. A permit issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA) specified the acceptable levels of ammonia nitrogen in the wastewater to be discharged into the river and required weekly tests to monitor the levels of ammonia nitrogen. When the levels of ammonia nitrogen rose above the permitted level, the WWTP’s manager and assistant manager manipulated the flow, selectively sampled, or falsified test results to make it appear that Morrell was not violating the permit. Monthly reports were signed by Sinskey and sent to the Environmental Protection Agency. Sinskey and Kumm were charged with and convicted of CWA violations. On appeal, Sinskey argued that because the adverb “knowingly” immediately precedes the verb “violates” in § 1319(c)(2)(A) of the CWA, the district court erroneously instructed the jury that to find Sinskey acted “knowingly,” the government (plaintiff) had to prove that Sinskey was aware of his acts and performed them intentionally but did not have to prove that Sinskey knew his acts violated the CWA or permits issued under the CWA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Arnold, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 645,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 39,700 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
