Opinion ID: 203233
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Puerto Rico Senate Report

Text: The claim of bias is further substantiated by evidence that the Puerto Rico Senate improperly exerted pressure on the EQB with respect to the assessment of this penalty against Esso.7 Specifically, the Puerto Rico Senate Commission on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Energy issued a partial report in which it directed the Commission on Government Integrity to identify those public officials [in the EQB] who permitted the slowness with which the gasoline spill was dealt with . . . and refer them to both the Department of Justice as well as to the Office of Government Ethics to determine whether any crime was committed or violation of the laws and regulations of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Partial 6 With respect to the Special Account, the defendants contend that the account's funds are not supplied solely on the basis of fines, but are also funded through the issuance of permits. The defendants argue that this fact severely undercuts the conclusion that the hearing examiners are biased. We are unpersuaded. The defendants' argument does nothing to alter the funding structure of the Special Account nor does it negate the fact that in this case, the EQB proposed a fine of $76 million. 7 On appeal, the defendants make no challenge to the district court's findings regarding the impact of the Puerto Rico Senate report on the EQB's proceedings against Esso. -21- Report on S.R. 1047, at 14 (P.R. Senate July 10, 2003) (certified translation). This threat of criminal prosecution of EQB officials strongly suggests that the Senate was threatening the EQB and is therefore evidence of actual bias in the proceedings. See Pillsbury Co. v. F.T.C., 354 F.2d 952, 964 (5th Cir. 1966) (noting that a legislative body's improper intrusion into the adjudicatory process deprives the right of private litigants to a fair trial and, equally important[ly] . . . their right to the appearance of impartiality, which cannot be maintained unless those who exercise the judicial function are free from powerful external influences (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955))). The fact that the appointment of EQB members requires Senate consent further intensifies the incentives felt by the EQB to impose an unduly heavy fine on Esso. After review of the evidence submitted by the parties, we re-affirm our conclusion that there is a strong appearance of bias and, additionally, undisputed evidence of actual bias in these proceedings.