A just-issued ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is highlighting the high evidentiary hurdle EPA and citizens face in both civil and criminal Clean Water Act (C WA) cases as this and other appellate courts are increasingly relying on a difficult-to-prove test for determining CWA jurisdiction. The appellate court ruled Oct. 24 in United States v. Charles Barry Robison, et al. to overturn convictions imposed by a federal district court in Alabama for MeWane Inc. — a pipe manufacturer — and two employees for their roles in a CWA conspiracy, as well as convictions for substantive CWA violations. The ruling is available on InsideEPA.com. See page 2 for details. The 1 lth Circuit's decision is based on the court's finding that the definition of "navigable waters" in the jury charge in 2005 was erroneous under the high court's 2006 ruling in Rapanos, et ux, et al. v. United States, and the government has not shown the error was harmless to the defendants.
展开▼
机译：美国第十一巡回上诉法院刚刚发布的裁定，突显了EPA和公民在《民用水法》和《刑事清洁水法》（C WA）案件中面临的高证据障碍，因为该法院和其他上诉法院都越来越依赖于确定CWA管辖权的检验测试。上诉法院于10月24日在美国诉Charles Barry Robison等人案中作出裁决。推翻阿拉巴马州联邦地方法院对MeWane Inc.（一家管道制造商）和两名雇员在CWA串谋中的作用以及对CWA实质性违反的定罪所定罪。该裁定可在InsideEPA.com上找到。有关详细信息，请参见第2页。第一巡回法院的裁决是基于法院的裁定，即根据高等法院2006年对Rapanos等人的裁决，陪审团在2005年对“通航水域”的定义是错误的。 v。美国，政府尚未证明该错误对被告无害。
展开▼
