ELR Citation: ELR 20492
No(s). 70 CR 148 (N.D. Ill. Jul 28, 1971)

Defendants' motion to dismiss denied. To establish violation of §407 of the Refuse Act of 1899, government need not prove that refuse discharge impeded navigation. Willful, knowing discharge into navigable waters without permit is sufficient to establish offense. Nor must government allege that discharge violated applicable state or federal water quality standards since Water Quality Act specifically provides that it neither affects nor impairs Refuse Act provisions. Act passed in 1910 specifically forbidding discharges into Lake Michigan does not supercede the 1899 Act, though subsequent prosecution for same offense under the 1910 Act might be double jeopardy. Defendant corporation is entitled to bill of particulars in order to obviate possibility of two prosecutions for same offense, but individual defendant, charged with only one violation, is not entitled to same. Government need not provide defendants with theory of case in discovery, but must provide defendants with statements they made to government agency or others to be used in prosecution and with any evidence in government hands tending to show innocence.

Counsel for Plaintiff:
Howard M. Hoffman
U.S. Attorney's Office
U.S. Courthouse
219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL
(312) 353-5300

Counsel for Defendant, U.S. Steel Corp.:
Henry L. Pitts
Jay A. Lipe
208 South La Salle Street
Chicago, IL
(315) 372-5600

Counsel for Defendant, Charles Kay:
George J. Cotsirilos
1 North La Salle Street
Chicago, IL
(315) 263-0345