ILNews

Circuit Court: Spreadsheets OK as evidence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Terre Haute company and its president lost an appeal of their convictions and sentence for making materially false statement reports under the Clean Water Act.

In United States of America v. Derrik Hagerman and Wabash Environmental Technologies, LLC, Nos. 07-3874, 07-3875, Derrik Hagerman argued the District Court erred in admitting into evidence copies of certain electronic spreadsheets that recorded test results of waste liquid that weren't charged in indictment. Hagerman believed the test results are evidence of prior bad acts that should have been excluded under Fed. Rule of Evid. 404(b).

Wabash Environmental treated industrial liquid waste and discharged the treated liquid into the Wabash River. The company was required to make monthly reports disclosing the test results of the waste using EPA-approved procedures.

The spreadsheets in question in the appeal cover the same period of time that Hagerman and his company were charged with misrepresenting results of tests. It would have been infeasible to separate out the evidence to eliminate any hint that Hagerman had also falsified other test results, wrote the 7th Circuit in the per curium opinion. The judges also dismissed Hagerman's argument that by admitting those spreadsheets, which showed misconduct not charged in the indictment, the District Court allowed the indictment to be "constructively amended."

The 7th Circuit affirmed the District Court judge's jury instruction on the requirement Hagerman was to certify each report was accurate and complete by using language from Wabash Environmental's discharge permit. Hagerman believed it should be up to the jury to determine whether Wabash Environmental had a system in place to ensure the test results were properly gathered and evaluated.

"The judge's instruction that the testing methods must 'conform to applicable federal regulations' was a correct interpretation of the permit, and the meaning of the permit presented an issue of law that the judge was entitled to determine, rather than leave to the jury," wrote the court.

The 7th Circuit also upheld Hagerman's 60-month prison sentence over Hagerman's arguments that imprisonment will make paying restitution difficult and that he's made considerable contributions to his community.

In September 2008, Hagerman's appeal of the District Court's dismissal of the government's petition for relief after Wabash agreed to start paying restitution and furnish specific financial information was dismissed because Hagerman and Wabash Environmental weren't represented by an attorney. The 7th Circuit ruled owners of limited liability companies must have an attorney to appeal a decision in federal court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT