UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DONALD L. BLANKENSHIP
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wynn, Jan. 19, 2017,
30 USC 820 – Mens Rea – “reckless disregard” and “plain indifference” can constitute criminal “willfulness.”
Facts:
Blankenship was CEO of an energy company running a coal mining operation in West Virginia. Evidence presented suggested the mine had hundreds of safety violations, but Blankenship stated it was “cheaper to break the safety laws and pay the fines than to spend what would be necessary to follow the safety laws.”
When an accident at the mine killed 29 miners, Blankenship was charged with conspiracy to violate federal mine safety laws (among other crimes). The charge mirrored the language of 30 USC 820(d) and was accompanied by a 30-page statement of facts specifying the safety regulations that he conspired to violate.
Blankenship was only convicted of the conspiracy and sentenced to one year in prison. Blankenship appealed, arguing that his charge should have specified the specific mine safety regulations that he conspired to violate.
The Fourth Circuit disagreed.
Charging- A charging document that uses the generic words of a statute to charge a crime but is accompanied by a statement describing the specifics of the crime satisfies the Constitution.
Charging – To satisfy the Fifth Amendment (Due Process, Double Jeopardy) and Sixth Amendments (Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation), an indictment “must contain the elements of the offense charged, fairly inform a defendant of the charge, and enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy as a defense in a future prosecution for the same offense.”
Charging- Under this standard, an indictment may use the words of the statute itself, as long as those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense.
Other issues from the case:
Confrontation Clause – Limiting ability to re-cross government witness was not a Confrontation Clause violation where the Defendant could have recalled the witness during their case
Re-cross – Where new evidence is opened up on redirect, the opposing party must be given the right of cross examination on the new matter, but may be limited to that area specifically.
Jury Instruction- Because it suggests preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Circuit disfavors an instruction that if it “view[ed] the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions—one of innocence, the other of guilt—the jury should, of course, adopt the conclusion of innocence.”