Samuel Millstone v. United States—On Behalf of Petitioner, Samuel Millstone

Opening
Reserve time for rebuttal—0, 1, 2, or 3 minutes
Good Evening Your Honors, may it please the court, my name is Sterling Paulson, counsel for Millstone in the matter Millstone v. United States. Would the court care for a brief recitation of facts?

Facts
Samuel Millstone; successful businessman
2003—unemployed; business idea: Sekuritek
Enter Bigle Chemical Co.

Chemical Co. Ceo Drayton Wesley contact Millstone
Agreement and Sekuritek expansion; Largest contract—$8.5 million over 10 years. Required massive investment in new equipment, SUVs. Many new hires
Josh Atlas and Accident
Chemical leak Windy River
23 people dead, 3 national historic buildings destroyed, homes burned, 50,000 acres of farmed land decimated, $450 million in damage
Chemical compound “Soup”; total damage to local economies—$1.25 billion
Investigation
Sekuritek handbook—Atlas and other employees were informed of company policy to dismount from vehicle 100 ft. away and proceed on foot, but Atlas did not do so and when the accelerator stuck, he was too close to tank to prevent disaster. Atlas broke protocol but protocol was not explicitly mentioned in shortened training—3 weeks to one (1).
SUV company shady—“history of shoddy worksmanship”
Security Wall—delayed response of first responders and environ. cleanup
Charges for negligent discharge of pollutants; witness tampering
Millstone found guilty on both charges

Issues At Hand
There are 2 pertinent issues before the court and before your honors this evening.
1. Can a person be convicted of negligently discharging pollutants in violation of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1)(A), for failing to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in the same situation?
In this case, the answer is no. To do so would be to apply a civil standard to a criminal statute, which previous court rulings and mere common sense shows to be an error in judgment.
2. Under the federal witness-tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b)(3), can an individual “corruptly” persuade a potential witness to withhold information by encouraging the potential witness to invoke their 5th amendment right (right to avoid self-incrimination)?
In this case, the answer is no. Mere encouragement without any attempt at coercion or any threat being made would be to apply an improper definition of the term “corruptly.”
At Issue
How to define “negligent”
Ordinary/civil vs. gross/criminal
Majority: Black’s Law Definition; no due process because legislation allows for regulation of potentially harmful under public welfare doctrine
Dissent—civil to criminal distinction. Maj improperly applies civil standard to criminal application of term; due process issue with ‘ordinary’ reading; “Here, neither Millstone nor his company handle dangerous regulated chemicals. Millstone and his employees do not work with industrial equipment or engage in manufacturing, construction, or other industrial activities that may clue them in to the regulated nature of their activities or the standard of care they must meet to avoid criminal liability under the CWA. Based on its holding today, the majority would have this Court convict even a visitor to Bigle Chemical’s plant who negligently forgot to tie his shoes, fell and tripped a switch that discharged.”
How to define “corrupting a wtiness”
Relevant statute language: “Whoever knowingly...corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so...with the intent to...hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 year, or both.”/ how to interpret “corruptly”
Majority—persuasion of defendant was corrupt because motivated by improper purpose
Dissent—to be “corrupt” more needed than merely attempting