Yep, they tossed out the conviction of John Yates, charged and convicted under Sorbanes-Oxley for tossing a too small grouper overboard.
No idea what I am talking about? Read the link.
Screw the man!

TL;DR,
Fisherman caught with too small fish, told to keep fish on board and follow FWC back to port. Fisherman tosses too small fish over the side and replaces with a different too small fish. (not of this disputed).
Now the fun part...
He gets charged under sorbanes-oxley! This law was made to go after the document shredders at Enron. Somehow they try him under a law pertaining to destroying emails, hard drives etc. claiming the fish is a "tangible object (the law reads "“any record, document or tangible object”").
Fisherman gets 10 freakin' years for a few undersize fish.
Anyway, USSC voted 9 to 0 that this was bullshit.
Chalk up another loss to overzealous crusading and vengeful prosecutors...
Now if they could just figure out a way to imprison these assholes (malicious prosecutors)
ETA, all this happened in Cortez, Fl. just north of Sarasota
ETA Pt 2, 20 year sentence, did 30 days.

ETA; I am now being told it was a 5-4 decision. Now I want to know which justices voted against him!

It sucks he had to go all the way to the supreme court to get this dropped, unbelievable

Who is this 'we' you mention?

The fisherman was a dipshit. The FWC was also crass for trying to prosecute someone using said law.

Any angler, commercial or recreational, who violates conservation laws such as size and limit should be fully prosecuted by the proper laws enacted to keep them from committing said dipshittery.

"we" did not win.  This guy broke the law, made allegations that proved false and still managed to get away with catching undersized fish.

This FWC officer is infamous in these parts.  He couldn't figure out that the fish got bigger because they were frozen by the time the vessels returned to port.  

The crewman did admit to throwing the undersized fish back after being directed to do so by the captain.  However, he also changed his testimony many times.  He alleges that he confessed because the FWC officer told him that someone was going to prison and that it rolls down hill so he might as well play ball and cut a deal.

And we should be charged with RICO if speeding with other cars in traffic, charged with terrorism laws for a minor firearm law violation, or with tax evasion and have your house seized if you don't pay taxes on your $20 internet purchases .  

Charge the guy with the illegal fish.  Whether the limits are 'fair' or sentences appropriate is another issue.  We're talking about using a racketeering/accounting law with 20 year sentences for a guy who tossed a fish.  That's why we have evidence tampering laws.  I'm happy to be part of the "we" that thinks the SOX charge was insane, and I'm glad it was tossed.  Even the Supreme Court is unanimous about this.  How can you not be on board?

That was my first thought. Undersize fish? Ok, write them a ticket or give them a warning or something. 10 years in the slammer all the way to the USSC is about as over the top as it gets.

Thanks for the info OP.

Catching a fish that is a couple inches too small is like me driving 5 over in a 45 zone. No one really cares.


Wonder what it cost this guy to go to the USSC?  Does .gov (you and I through our confiscated taxes) have to pay for his court/lawyer costs? If not my guess is he NEVER fishes again and gets to buy his clothes at the Goodwill from now on.

Guy caught 72 fish undersized not one or two.  He was still convicted of the other charges.  He destroyed evidence and lied to agents and officers.  The article is not accurate at all.  if he would have complied with FWCC he would have just got a civil citation and that would have been the end of it.

Unbelievable that a commercial fisherman who knowingly catches and keeps undersized fish is now whining about lost wages and why he can't fish any more

With that said - charging him with a SOX violation for not preserving the fish is not at all different than using RICO for people who speed in packs of cars on the highway.  I'm really surprised at the long line of people that had to think that was a good idea (before it got to the SC)

Thanks for the clarification.

AUSA is the one who dreamed up that charge...

Nobody is saying he was innocent. No one disputes the fish count or size. No one disputes the changing stories. What was disputed was the use of Sarbanes - Oxley being used in prosecution.
The multiple years in prison were due to being charged under laws designed to be used on large scale corporate fraud. Can't you people see the problem here?
Legitimate charges for crimes committed, laws designed to combat multi million/billion dollar fraud is not appropriate for one fish, two fish, 72 fish or even a thousand fish.
My god people, maybe your local gun club should be seized and all members imprisoned as soon as the first Dale Gribble suggest overthrowing the government. Hell, sedition, treason and the whole encyclopedia of anti terrorism laws could apply.
Sometimes this place simply amazes me.

Hey, if someone tells me to shut up can I have them charged with attempting to deprive me of my civil rights????

Oh, the Sarbanes - Oxley charges were filed over THREE fish...
The devil is in the details ya know....

I hear you and agree. Those complaining either do not understand the potential for abuse or they are not Jewish.........