## Facts

- Gilbert G. Hamel was the yard foreman at a marina on Lake St. Clair, a navigable waterway.
- Two ice fishermen observed gasoline on the ice near the marina pier and contacted authorities, leading to Coast Guard involvement.
- The fishermen saw a man arrive in a car, manipulate a gasoline dispenser at the end of the pier, leave, and then observed gasoline begin to gush; they later saw the same man return and again manipulate the dispenser.
- At trial, both fishermen identified Hamel as the man at the pier dispenser.
- Coast Guard investigators later observed Hamel pumping gasoline into a car from a different pump location and questioned him about any spill or other dispensers at the facility.
- Hamel denied knowledge of any gasoline spill and denied knowledge of any other gasoline dispensers or pumps at the facility.
- Investigation determined approximately 200–300 gallons of gasoline had discharged onto the ice and that the pier dispenser was fed by a pump located elsewhere in an underground tank system.
- Hamel was charged and convicted by a jury of knowingly and willfully discharging gasoline into navigable waters in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1311, with “pollutant” defined by 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove identity and willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument was so improper and prejudicial as to require reversal.
3. Whether gasoline qualifies as a “pollutant” under 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6) for purposes of criminal liability under 33 U.S.C. § 1311.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to submit identity and scienter to the jury and to sustain the verdict.
- The court held the prosecutor’s closing remarks, even if arguably improper, did not deprive Hamel of a fair trial and did not warrant reversal.
- The court held gasoline is a “pollutant” within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6), and the statute of conviction covers gasoline discharges into navigable waters.

## Legal Principles

- “Pollutant” in 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6) is construed broadly to further federal water-pollution control purposes and is not limited to substances expressly listed; gasoline may fall within the definition for criminal enforcement under 33 U.S.C. § 1311.
- Congress’s environmental enforcement scheme may be read in light of prior federal waterway pollution prohibitions; a separate oil-spill provision does not, by itself, exclude petroleum products from broader criminal prohibitions.
- Circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness identification combined with false exculpatory statements to investigators, can support findings of identity and willfulness in a pollution prosecution.
- Improper prosecutorial argument warrants reversal only when, considered in context of the full trial record, it renders the proceeding fundamentally unfair; otherwise any error is treated as harmless.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Hamel’s conviction for willfully discharging gasoline into a navigable waterway, concluding that gasoline is a statutory “pollutant,” the circumstantial proof supported identity and willfulness, and the challenged closing argument did not require a new trial.


United States v. Hamel, 551 F.2d 107 (6th Cir. 1977)