Opinion ID: 695155
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Negligence Contention

Text: 49 Hopkins also contends that the jury, consistent with the trial court's instructions, could have convicted him for conduct that was merely negligent or innocent. In light of the court's actual instructions and the evidence presented, this contention is meritless. With respect to count one, for example, the court instructed, inter alia, that the government was required to prove that Hopkins had a high degree of awareness that the testing process was being tampered with, and prove that he did not [falsify or tamper with that process] by mistake, accident or other innocent reason (Tr. at 286), and that [a] showing of negligence, mistake or even foolishness on the part of the defendant is not enough to support an inference of knowledge (id. at 285). With respect to count two, the court similarly instructed that the government was required to prove that Hopkins had acted voluntarily or intentionally and not by mistake, accident, ignorance of the facts, or for other innocent reason. (Id. at 288.) 50 Nor did the evidence show conduct that was merely negligent. Rather, the evidence and testimony at trial overwhelmingly indicated both that Hopkins was aware of the permit requirements and that he knew that numerous samples of Spirol's wastewater discharge contained concentrations of zinc in excess of the permitted levels. In his capacity as a corporate officer, Hopkins had signed the 1987 consent order imposing detailed discharge limitations; the February 1989 permit modification had been sent to Spirol to the attention of Hopkins; and Hopkins had sole corporate responsibility for supervising the Spirol wastewater testing program throughout the relevant period. In carrying out that supervision, Hopkins repeatedly warned Morrison when the zinc concentrations in a sample were close to the borderline, repeatedly sent Morrison back for cleaner samples, and specifically alluded to the one-milligram-per-liter permit limitation by telling Morrison to make sure it doesn't go over one. (Tr. 100.) 51 We see no possibility that the jury could have convicted Hopkins solely for negligence.