In the Courts

On July 19, 2012, the District Court for the District of Columbia considered application of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Southern Union Co. v. United States, — U.S. —, 132 S. Ct. 2344, —L.Ed.2d.—- (2012), to the admissibility of gross revenue evidence in calculation of criminal fines under the Alternative Fines Provision, 18 U.S.C. ' 3571(d). United States v. Sanford Ltd, —F.Supp.2d.—, 2012 WL2930770, *13 (2012). The case involves felony charges against the defendants under the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. ” 1901 et. seq., and other related criminal charges, based on defendants' alleged knowing failure to maintain an accurate Oil Record Book, falsification of records, obstruction of justice and unlawful discharge of oil waste. Id. at *1. The opinion considers a motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding the alleged proceeds received by the defendants as a result of their sales of fishing cargo from the fishing vessel at issue, the San Nikunau, during the relevant timeframe (i.e., between March 2007 and July 2011). Id.

The government proposed to introduce evidence indicating that the defendants had received $24,862,954.89 in gross revenue from sales of fishing cargo offloaded from the San Nikunau during that period. The defendants argued that the evidence was irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence (F.R.E.) 402 and, in the alternative, unfairly prejudicial under F.R.E. 403. The government argued ' and the court ultimately agreed ' that, regardless of whether revenue figures were relevant to any element of the charged offenses, gain is always relevant to motive in a criminal case. Id. at *4-5. However, after rejecting the defendants' arguments with respect to F.R.E. 402 and 403, the court raised questions sua sponte as to the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision in Southern Union. Id. at *1.