Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02431/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02431-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sam Opare-Addo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2431

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Sam Opare-Addo, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 8, 2007

Filed: May 22, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Sam Opare-Addo appeals his conviction and sentence imposed after he was

found guilty by a jury of eight counts of violating, or aiding and abetting the violation

of, the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district

court1

 sentenced Opare-Addo to twenty-six months imprisonment and one year of

supervised release. On appeal, Opare-Addo argues that there was insufficient

evidence to convict him of the eight counts in light of the jury’s acquittal on a related

count. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 06-2431 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311671
-2-

I.

Opare-Addo, an American citizen originally from Guyana, possesses degrees

in chemistry from both a university in Guyana and the University of Minnesota. In

January 2003, Opare-Addo began working for Prime Plating, Inc., a small, familyowned metal plating business in Maple Grove, Minnesota. Opare-Addo had previous

experience in the metal plating industry. Before Opare-Addo began working, Scott

Hanson had purchased Prime Plating from his father, Arlyn Hanson, however Arlyn

Hanson maintained limited involvement in the company. 

The process of metal plating creates hazardous liquid wastes, which must be

disposed of by either storing the wastes for later disposal by a third party or by

pretreating the waste before discharging it into the sewers. Prime Plating had obtained

a permit from the Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services (MCES), which

allowed Prime Plating to discharge wastes into the sewer system after those wastes

had been pretreated so that the wastes would not damage the public sewer system. 

In April 2003, MCES and other environmental agencies began investigating

whether Prime Plating was adhering to permit requirements concerning the

pretreatment of the waste. This investigation involved numerous visits to Prime

Plating from April through July 2003, and culminated in undercover testing of the

waste water from June 23 through June 27 and June 30 through July 2, 2003. The test

results revealed significant violations of Prime Plating’s permit. 

Based on these test results, the government obtained a search warrant which

was executed on July 14, 2003. The search revealed that Prime Plating was using

hoses to bypass an inoperable pretreatment system and discharge waste directly into

the sewer system. An indictment was brought against Opare-Addo, Scott Hanson,

Arlyn Hanson, and Prime Plating, Inc. After a consolidated jury trial, Opare-Addo

was convicted on eight counts (Counts 2-9) of knowingly violating or aiding and

Appellate Case: 06-2431 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311671
-3-

abetting the violation of the Clean Water Act by discharging untreated liquid

industrial wastes directly into the public sewer system based on the results from the

eight days of testing conducted in June and July 2003. Opare-Addo was acquitted on

several other counts, including one count (Count 10) of knowingly introducing or

aiding and abetting the introduction into the sewers of a pollutant which he knew or

reasonably should have known could cause personal injury and property damage, in

violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2)(B). 

II. 

In his sole issue on appeal, Opare-Addo contends that the government failed to

present sufficient evidence to support his conviction on Counts 2-9. “‘We review the

sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to

the government, resolving conflicts in the government’s favor, and accepting all

reasonable inferences that support the verdict.’” United States v. Hamilton, 332 F.3d

1144, 1148 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845, 852

(8th Cir. 2003)). Under this strict standard, we will reverse only where no reasonable

jury could have found the accused guilty. United States v. Sanders, 341 F.3d 809, 815

(8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1227 (2004). 

Opare-Addo argues the jury could not have found him guilty of Counts 2-9

under an aiding and abetting theory because they did not also find him guilty of Count

10, which included an aiding and abetting option. Thus, he contends, the jury must

have determined that he personally committed the acts of discharging described in

Counts 2-9. Because the government failed to present evidence from which the jury

could have found that Opare-Addo personally discharged the pollutants on the specific

dates alleged in Counts 2-9, Opare-Addo submits that his convictions are not

supported by sufficient evidence and must be reversed. 

Appellate Case: 06-2431 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311671
2

 In his reply brief, Opare-Addo objects to the government’s characterization

of his argument as one of inconsistent verdicts. Rather, he asserts that “while the

verdict is strange and inconsistent,” the guilty verdicts on Counts 2-9 cannot be

sustained because (1) the government failed to introduce evidence of Opare-Addo’s

participation at the time of the offense and (2) the proof fails even under an aiding and

abetting analysis. 

-4-

The government responds that the verdicts were not inconsistent because Count

10 included an element not found in Counts 2-9.2

 Further, the government asserts the

evidence supports culpability based upon personal involvement, upon aiding and

abetting, and upon Opare-Addo’s “‘causing’ the discharges” because Opare-Addo (1)

worked as an active manager in Prime Plating, (2) was responsible for environmental

compliance and installation of a pretreatment system, and (3) directed employees on

dates before and after those alleged in the indictment to dump untreated waste into the

public sewer system. 

We reject Opare-Addo’s assertion that the jury’s acquittal on Count 10

necessarily implies that the convictions on Counts 2-9 could not have been based on

a theory of aiding and abetting. In comparison to Counts 2-9, Count 10 included an

additional element of knowledge that the pollutant could cause personal injury or

property damage. Opare-Addo concludes that the jury could not have acquitted him

based on a failure of proof as to that element because he has an extensive educational

and occupational background in chemistry and metal plating. Therefore, Opare-Addo

contends the jury must have found that he personally discharged the pollutants as

alleged in Counts 2-9, otherwise–had the basis for the conviction been aiding and

abetting–he would have also been found guilty on Count 10. Opare-Addo argues with

aiding and abetting eliminated as a ground for conviction of Counts 2-9, the

government failed to introduce evidence that Opare-Addo personally discharged the

pollutants on the specified dates, and thus reversal is warranted. 

Appellate Case: 06-2431 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311671
-5-

We have previously held, when considering what are characterized as

inconsistent verdicts, that we only ask whether the government presented sufficient

evidence to support the conviction. Nesbitt v. Hopkins, 86 F.3d 118, 121 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1016 (1996). We are reluctant to delve into the minds of the

jurors to determine the reasons for apparently inconsistent verdicts. Inconsistent

verdicts may result from an inclination to be merciful or confusion on the part of the

jury. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65 (1984) (“It is equally possible that

the jury, convinced of guilt, properly reached its conclusion on the compound offense,

and then through mistake, compromise, or lenity, arrived at an inconsistent conclusion

on the lesser offense.”); Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 394 (1932) (“That the

verdict may have been the result of compromise, or of mistake on the part of the jury,

is possible.”). Any attempt to explain why Opare-Addo was convicted of Counts 2-9

but acquitted on Count 10 “would be based on either on pure speculation, or would

require inquiries into the jury’s deliberations that courts generally will not undertake.”

Powell, 469 U.S. at 66. We are left only with a question of whether the government

presented sufficient evidence to support the counts of conviction. 

To obtain convictions on Counts 2-9, which alleged violations under 33 U.S.C.

§ 1319(c)(2)(A), the government was required to prove that (1) on or about June 23

through June 27 (Counts 2-6) and June 30 through July 2, 2003 (Counts 7-9), OpareAddo discharged a pollutant or caused a pollutant to be discharged, (2) the pollutant

was discharged into a sewer system or publicly-owned treatment works, (3) the

discharge violated an applicable requirement which was (4) part of an approved

treatment program, and (5) Opare-Addo acted knowingly. 

In order to convict Opare-Addo of aiding and abetting the violation of the Clean

Water Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2, the government had to prove more than OpareAddo’s “mere association with, and knowledge of the activities” of others at Prime

Plating, rather the government had to show that Opare-Addo “associated himself with

the [illegal discharges], participated in it ‘as something [he] wished to bring about,’

Appellate Case: 06-2431 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311671
-6-

and acted in such a way as to ensure its success.” United States v. Sinskey, 119 F.3d

712, 718 (8th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). In other words, the government must

prove that Opare-Addo encouraged the perpetrators in order for him to be convicted

of aiding and abetting the violation of the Clean Water Act. See United States v.

Hernandez, 986 F.2d 234, 238 (8th Cir. 1993). When considering a charge of aiding

and abetting, “[c]ircumstantial evidence is ‘intrinsically as probative as direct

evidence’ and may be the sole support for a conviction.” United States v. McCrady,

774 F.2d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 1985) (quoting United States v. Two Eagle, 633 F.2d 93,

97 (8th Cir. 1980)). 

After carefully reviewing the record, construed in the light most favorable to

the verdict, we believe that the evidence presented by the government against OpareAddo is such that a reasonable juror could have convicted him of aiding and abetting

the discharge of the pollutants as charged in Counts 2-9. Several witnesses testified

that Opare-Addo presented himself as a supervisor or manager at Prime Plating. He

was the Prime Plating employee often sought out by MCES officials and to whom

other employees, including owner Scott Hanson, would refer those officials with

regard to issues of environmental compliance. 

Terry Bergeron, who began working as a zinc barrel plater in June 2002,

testified that in May 2003, approximately one month prior to the beginning of the June

and July testing of Prime Plating’s waste water, Opare-Addo had ordered Bergeron

to discharge untreated waste directly into the sewer system. When Bergeron refused

and informed Opare-Addo that he had contacted the Environmental Protection Agency

and learned that he was not supposed to be discharging untreated waste, Opare-Addo

became upset and “stomped out of the building.” Opare-Addo soon returned with a

marijuana pipe that Bergeron had left on a desk at Prime Plating and told Bergeron

that he was fired for smoking marijuana. 

Appellate Case: 06-2431 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311671
-7-

Jimmy Meissner, the shop foreman, testified that Opare-Addo said he had fired

Bergeron because Bergeron had taken photos of the drain hoses. Around one month

after Bergeron’s termination, Opare-Addo directed Meissner to search the sewer

manholes around Prime Plating to “see if there was something hanging out” of them.

Although Meissner did not know exactly what he was searching for, Opare-Addo “just

told [him] to look for something that was hanging out of the manhole covers.” OpareAddo told Meissner that he was also planning to examine the sewers around Prime

Plating. Meissner testified that, when MCES did on-site testing of Prime Plating in

April 2003, Opare-Addo added a dye to the waste chemicals to make the chemicals

look like clean water and directed another employee to add fresh water to a trough

where the testing equipment had been installed. 

Jose Leandro Cano-Marquez, an illegal alien hired by Opare-Addo to work at

Prime Plating, testified in a deposition, which was read at trial, that Opare-Addo told

him to discharge the waste water from the metal plating lines and that only OpareAddo had so instructed him. Cano-Marquez said that on the Friday just prior to the

execution of the search warrant, Opare-Addo had instructed him to drain a tank of

dirty waste water directly into the sewer. 

This evidence demonstrates that Opare-Addo was more than a passive observer

of the illegal discharges. Opare-Addo admitted to investigators that he knew about

the illegal discharges, but he claimed that he had voiced objections to them. The

evidence presented at trial, however, supports the conclusion that Opare-Addo was

actively involved in directing the discharges and had taken steps to prevent MCES’s

discovery of the illegal activities. Accepting as credible the government’s witnesses,

a reasonable jury could find that Opare-Addo aided and abetted the illegal discharges

charged in Counts 2-9, in light of Opare-Addo’s environmental compliance

responsibilities at Prime Plating and his instructions to employees to make illegal

discharges. See United States v. Hill, 249 F.3d 707, 714 (8th Cir. 2001) (“Witness

Appellate Case: 06-2431 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311671
-8-

credibility is within the province of the jury, which we are not allowed to review.”)

(citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1978)). 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2431 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/22/2007 Entry ID: 3311671