Jerry Boylan, the former captain of the dive boat M.V. Conception, was convicted by a jury for seaman's manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1115 following a fire in September 2019 that killed thirty-four passengers and crew members. The fire broke out while passengers were sleeping below deck; Boylan had failed to train his crew on fire safety, neglected the regulatory requirement to have a roving patrol, and abandoned ship without attempting to assist the trapped passengers. At trial, the district court had initially dismissed an indictment for failing to allege gross negligence, but the government amended the charges. The jury was instructed that Boylan could be found guilty if he 'engaged in misconduct and/or acted with gross negligence.' Boylan appealed, arguing that the statute requires gross negligence and that the inclusion of 'misconduct' in the instructions allowed the jury to convict on a lower standard than the law permits.
The panel, writing for the court, first addressed the statutory interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1115. Boylan argued that the statute required gross negligence, relying on the Ninth Circuit's precedent for involuntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1112. The court rejected this, noting that § 1115 and § 1112 are distinct offenses with different texts and purposes. While § 1112 applies to all persons and requires gross negligence, § 1115 applies specifically to vessel operators who have a heightened fiduciary duty to their passengers. The court examined the plain text of § 1115, which lists 'misconduct, negligence, or inattention' without the qualifier 'gross.' Citing legislative history from the 1838 Act and the 1909 reenactment, the court found no indication that Congress intended to import a gross negligence standard. Furthermore, the court noted that Congress has explicitly distinguished between negligence and gross negligence in other maritime statutes, suggesting that the absence of such language in § 1115 was intentional. Consequently, the court held that § 1115 requires only ordinary negligence. Regarding the jury instruction error, the court applied the harmless error standard. Even if the term 'misconduct' was ambiguous, the error was harmless because the district court repeatedly instructed the jury that gross negligence was the standard, the government never argued that mere misconduct was sufficient, and the evidence against Boylan was overwhelming. The court concluded that a rational jury would have found Boylan guilty regardless of the instruction.
This decision clarifies that captains of commercial vessels can be convicted of manslaughter under federal law for ordinary negligence, not just gross negligence. The ruling aligns the Ninth Circuit with the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits on the interpretation of § 1115. The conviction stands, and the case is affirmed. The decision does not resolve whether an indictment alleging only 'misconduct' without negligence would suffice, as the court explicitly declined to decide that issue.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download