Case Law United States v. Maury

United States v. Maury

Document Cited Authorities (64) Cited in (203) Related (3)

695 F.3d 227

UNITED STATES of America

v.Jeffrey MAURY, Appellant No. 09–2305.

United States of America

v.Craig Davidson, Appellant No. 09–2306.

United States of America

v.John Prisque, Appellant No. 09–2345.

United States of America

v.Scott Faubert, Appellant No. 09–2346.

United States of America

v.Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company, a Division of McWane, Inc., Appellant No. 09–2356.

Nos. 09–2305, 09–2306, 09–2345, 09–2346, 09–2356.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued March 29, 2012.

Filed: Sept. 17, 2012.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Michael N. Pedicini (ARGUED), Morristown, NJ, for Defendant–Appellant Jeffrey Maury.

Hilary L. Brunell (ARGUED), Vincent J. Nuzzi, Nuzzi & Mason, Dover, NJ, for Defendant–Appellant Craig Davidson.

Michael D. Critchley (ARGUED), Critchley, Kinum & Vazquez, Roseland, NJ, for Defendant–Appellant John Prisque.

Michael D'Alessio, Jr. (ARGUED), Walder, Hayden & Brogan, Roseland, NJ, Timothy I. Duffy, Mark K. Silver, Michael J. Sullivan, Coughlin Duffy, Morristown, NJ, for Defendant–Appellant Scott Faubert.

John J. O'Reilly (ARGUED), Day Pitney, Parsippany, NJ, for Defendant–Appellant Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co.Mark E. Coyne, Office of the United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, Paul J. Fishman, Norman Gross, Glenn J. Moramarco (ARGUED), Ignacia S. Moreno, Andrew D. Goldsmith, Office of United States Attorney, Camden, NJ, John L. Smeltzer, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff–Appellee the United States of America.

Before: FUENTES, SMITH, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

FUENTES, Circuit Judge:

+-----------------+
¦Table of Contents¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+

+-----------------------------------------+
¦I.¦Facts & Posture                   ¦233¦
+-----------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦A.¦Factual Background              ¦233¦
+------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦The Defendants                       ¦233 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦The Plant                            ¦234 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦B.¦Clean Water Act Violations      ¦234¦
+------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Unlawful Discharge of Wastewater             ¦235   ¦
+---+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Resulting Oil Spills & Ensuing Investigations¦236   ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦C.¦Clean Air Act Violations        ¦238¦
+------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦The Plant's CAA Permits              ¦238 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Burning Excess Paint                 ¦239 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦D.¦OSHA Incidents                  ¦240¦
+------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦The Coxe Fatality                    ¦240 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦The Marchan Incident                 ¦241 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦The Owens Incident                   ¦242 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦The Velarde Incident                 ¦243 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦E. ¦Indictment                                 ¦244  ¦
+--+---+-------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦F. ¦Pre–Trial Issues                           ¦245  ¦
+--+---+-------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦G. ¦Trial & Sentencing                         ¦245  ¦
+--+---+-------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦H. ¦The Present Appeal & the Parties' Arguments¦246  ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                                  ¦     ¦
+---+--------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦II.¦Discovery Issues                                  ¦247  ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦A. ¦Pre–Trial Discovery in a Criminal Case¦247 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Jencks Material                      ¦247 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Fed.R.Crim.P. 16                     ¦248 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Brady and Giglio Material            ¦249 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦B. ¦Pre–Trial Discovery in this Case      ¦249 ¦
+--+---+--------------------------------------+----¦
¦  ¦C. ¦The Scope of Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C)¦251 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Applicable Standard of Review        ¦251 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Rule 16(a)(1)(C)(ii)                 ¦252 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦III.¦Jury Instructions on the Clean Water Act Violations            ¦255    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A. ¦Negligence Instruction Under the Clean Water Act¦255   ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Invited Error Doctrine               ¦256 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦B.  ¦The District Court's Refusal to Define “Recklessness”¦260   ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦Accuracy of the Court's Instructions on “Knowing”      ¦261   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Conduct                                                ¦      ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Abuse of Discretion in Rejecting Proposed Language     ¦262   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                                  ¦     ¦
+---+--------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦IV.¦Mutually Exclusive Verdicts                       ¦263  ¦
+---+--------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦                                                  ¦     ¦
+---+--------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦V. ¦Conclusion                                        ¦267  ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+

Following an eight-month criminal trial, a jury convicted Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company and four of its managers of various crimes. These included conspiring to commit a host of environmental pollution and worker safety violations, attempting to cover up or impede federal investigation of those violations, and substantive violations of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the Defendants were found to have illegally pumped contaminated water into storm drains and, as a result, into the Delaware River; to have unlawfully burned 50–gallon drums of paint waste in a cupola and emitted the fumes from those activities into the air; and to have attempted to cover up several work-related accidents at its facility, one of which resulted in the death of an employee. The jury also found that the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to commit these acts—and to impede the resulting federal investigation—in order to maximize productivity and profits at the Plant.

The Defendants appealed from the jury's verdict, raising a litany of issues relating to pre-trial discovery, the District Court's handling of the trial itself, the propriety of certain jury instructions, and the District Court's sentencing determinations. For the reasons that follow, and in light of the District Court's fine handling of these extraordinarily complicated proceedings, we will affirm the final judgments of conviction and sentence in this case.

I. Facts & PostureA. Factual Background1

1. The Defendants

Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company (the “Company”), owned by McWane, Inc., operates a pipe foundry in Phillipsburg, New Jersey. The Plant, which produces ductile iron pipes used as municipal water pipes, sits on a 33–acre facility located just one mile from the Delaware River. Prior to 2002, the facility had several large storm drains that flowed through the municipal storm sewers to an outfall pipe that fed into the Delaware River.2

During the periods in question, the Plant was overseen by John Prisque, who became the Plant Manager in 1998. Prior to that, Prisque served as the Production Superintendent and the Production Manager.

Jeffrey Maury, like Prisque, had a long career at the Plant. After serving as the Maintenance Foreman from...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania – 2019
United States v. Delgado
"...in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified.’ " United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 247 (3d Cir. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b)(2) ). The Act endeavors to provide a defendant the opportunity ..."
Document | Kansas Supreme Court – 2018
State v. Williams
"...courts follow the same elements-comparison approach as North Carolina. For example, the Court of Appeals quoted United States v. Maury , 695 F.3d 227, 266 (3d Cir. 2012) : "[L]egally impossible verdicts only occur when ‘a conviction as to one of the crimes must negate an element of the othe..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania – 2021
United States v. Coles
"...18 U.S.C. § 3500 ; and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny. See United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 247 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 16 ; 18 U.S.C. § 3500 ; Brady, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 ).Most of the government's pretrial d..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts – 2020
United States v. Facteau
"...arises only "where the defendant was 'convicted of two crimes, at least one of which he could not have committed.'" United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 265 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Gross, 961 F.2d 1097, 1107 (3d Cir. 1992)). In other words, "a conviction as to one of the c..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2014
United States v. Kubini
"...that, ‘had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 249 (3d Cir.2012)cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1600, 185 L.Ed.2d 581 (2013) (quotation omitted). “Material evidence can include ev..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 58-3, July 2021 – 2021
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
"...evidence.312 304. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1)–(3). 305. Id. § 1319(c)(1). 306. See id. § 1319. 307. See, e.g., United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 257–60 (3d Cir. 2012); United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (10th Cir. 2005);..."
Document | Núm. 60-3, July 2023 – 2023
Environmental Crimes
"...knowledge of each essential element of an offense, a 317. Id. § 1319(c)(1). 318. See id. § 1319. 319. See, e.g. , United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 257–60 (3d Cir. 2012); United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (10th Cir..."
Document | Núm. 59-3, July 2022 – 2022
Environmental Crimes
".... 314. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1)–(3). 315. Id. § 1319(c)(1). 316. See id. § 1319. 317. See, e.g. , United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 257–60 (3d Cir. 2012); United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (10th Cir. 2005); United St..."
Document | Núm. 61-3, July 2024 – 2024
Environmental Crimes
"...imminent danger and a CWA vio- lation, and the CWA violation must precede the danger of harm.318 309. See, e.g., United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 257–58 (3d Cir. 2012); United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (10th Cir...."
Document | Part One – 2014
History of the Federal Environmental Crimes Program
"...435 (Winter 2006). 25. United States v. Atl. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 627 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.N.J. 2009), af’d , United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied , Atl. States Co. v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1600 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2013). 26. See Rapanos v. United States, 547..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
3 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2015
Minimizing Risk Under the Clean Water Act
"...98. Id. at *43 n.17 (citing Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 60 (2007)). 99. Id. 100. See generally United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 258-59 (3d Cir. 2012). 101. See, e.g., Hanousek, 176 F.3d at 1124-25 (Hanousek, who was found negligent, had directed daily activities at the..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2015
It's The PITs! Employer Guide To Forklift Liability In The Workplace
"...States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company, No. 03-852, 2007 WL 2282514 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2007) aff'd sub nom. United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2012), the conviction of an employer on multiple criminal counts involving EPA and OSHA violations demonstrates how an employer ca..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2015
It's The PITs! Employer Guide to Forklift Liability In The Workplace
"...States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company, No. 03-852, 2007 WL 2282514 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2007) aff'd sub nom. United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2012), the conviction of an employer on multiple criminal counts involving EPA and OSHA violations demonstrates how an employer ca..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 58-3, July 2021 – 2021
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
"...evidence.312 304. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1)–(3). 305. Id. § 1319(c)(1). 306. See id. § 1319. 307. See, e.g., United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 257–60 (3d Cir. 2012); United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (10th Cir. 2005);..."
Document | Núm. 60-3, July 2023 – 2023
Environmental Crimes
"...knowledge of each essential element of an offense, a 317. Id. § 1319(c)(1). 318. See id. § 1319. 319. See, e.g. , United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 257–60 (3d Cir. 2012); United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (10th Cir..."
Document | Núm. 59-3, July 2022 – 2022
Environmental Crimes
".... 314. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1)–(3). 315. Id. § 1319(c)(1). 316. See id. § 1319. 317. See, e.g. , United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 257–60 (3d Cir. 2012); United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (10th Cir. 2005); United St..."
Document | Núm. 61-3, July 2024 – 2024
Environmental Crimes
"...imminent danger and a CWA vio- lation, and the CWA violation must precede the danger of harm.318 309. See, e.g., United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 257–58 (3d Cir. 2012); United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (10th Cir...."
Document | Part One – 2014
History of the Federal Environmental Crimes Program
"...435 (Winter 2006). 25. United States v. Atl. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 627 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.N.J. 2009), af’d , United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied , Atl. States Co. v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1600 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2013). 26. See Rapanos v. United States, 547..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania – 2019
United States v. Delgado
"...in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified.’ " United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 247 (3d Cir. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b)(2) ). The Act endeavors to provide a defendant the opportunity ..."
Document | Kansas Supreme Court – 2018
State v. Williams
"...courts follow the same elements-comparison approach as North Carolina. For example, the Court of Appeals quoted United States v. Maury , 695 F.3d 227, 266 (3d Cir. 2012) : "[L]egally impossible verdicts only occur when ‘a conviction as to one of the crimes must negate an element of the othe..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania – 2021
United States v. Coles
"...18 U.S.C. § 3500 ; and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny. See United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 247 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 16 ; 18 U.S.C. § 3500 ; Brady, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 ).Most of the government's pretrial d..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts – 2020
United States v. Facteau
"...arises only "where the defendant was 'convicted of two crimes, at least one of which he could not have committed.'" United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 265 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Gross, 961 F.2d 1097, 1107 (3d Cir. 1992)). In other words, "a conviction as to one of the c..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2014
United States v. Kubini
"...that, ‘had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 249 (3d Cir.2012)cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1600, 185 L.Ed.2d 581 (2013) (quotation omitted). “Material evidence can include ev..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2015
Minimizing Risk Under the Clean Water Act
"...98. Id. at *43 n.17 (citing Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 60 (2007)). 99. Id. 100. See generally United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227, 258-59 (3d Cir. 2012). 101. See, e.g., Hanousek, 176 F.3d at 1124-25 (Hanousek, who was found negligent, had directed daily activities at the..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2015
It's The PITs! Employer Guide To Forklift Liability In The Workplace
"...States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company, No. 03-852, 2007 WL 2282514 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2007) aff'd sub nom. United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2012), the conviction of an employer on multiple criminal counts involving EPA and OSHA violations demonstrates how an employer ca..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2015
It's The PITs! Employer Guide to Forklift Liability In The Workplace
"...States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company, No. 03-852, 2007 WL 2282514 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2007) aff'd sub nom. United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2012), the conviction of an employer on multiple criminal counts involving EPA and OSHA violations demonstrates how an employer ca..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.