Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

United States v. Ahmad - 101 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 1996)

Rule:

The fact that violations of 33 U.S.C.S. § 1319(c)(2)(A) are felonies punishable by years in federal prison confirms that they do not fall within the public welfare offense exception under which some regulatory crimes have been held not to require a showing of mens rea. Public welfare offenses have virtually always been crimes punishable by relatively light penalties such as fines or short jail sentences, rather than substantial terms of imprisonment. Serious felonies, in contrast, should not fall within the exception absent a clear statement from Congress that mens rea is not required. 

Facts:

Attique Ahmad operated a gas station, and one of his pumps got contaminated with water. He pumped out the contents himself with knowledge that to do so was illegal. He contaminated a creek and the sanitary sewer system, which caused an explosion hazard and required schools and businesses to shut down. Ahmad was convicted of violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), codified at 33 U.S.C.S. §§1311(a), 1319(c)(2)(A), 1317(d), 1319(c)(2)(A), 1319(c)(3). He appealed and alleged that he thought that he was pumping water, and, therefore, he lacked the requisite mens rea to violate the CWA. 

Issue:

Did CWA violations fall into the judicially-created exception for "public welfare offenses," under which some regulatory crimes have been held not to require a showing of mens rea?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed and held that the charged offenses were not public welfare offenses so that a presumption of a mens rea requirement applied. The district court's instructions to the jury misled them as to the elements of the offense. Because the jury charge effectively withdrew from the jury's consideration facts that it should have been permitted to find or not find, there was error that required reversal. The district court erred when it did not charge the jury with a lesser-included offense instruction. On that basis, the exclusion of two of Ahmad’s witnesses was also error.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates