105.
Sample Jury Instructions for a Misdemeanor Food Adulteration Case
NOTE: This case did not go to trial
GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the
United States of America respectfully requests the Court to include
in
its charge to the jury the following instructions. The government
also
requests leave to submit to the Court such further instructions as
may
become appropriate in light of the evidence adduced at trial.
The government requests that the Court include in its charge
to the
jury Eleventh Circuit Pattern Basic Instructions . . . (fill in
later).
. . . Additionally, the government requests that the Court include
in
its charge the attached offense instructions.
REQUEST NO. 1
"ADULTERATION OF FOOD HELD FOR SALE"
(Counts 1 through 6)
Counts 1 through 6 of the Information charge that the
defendant
caused food to become adulterated, while it was held for sale, and
after
it had been shipped in interstate commerce.
In order to find the defendant guilty on these charges, you
must
find beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: The defendant caused food to become
adulterated;
Second: The food was being held for sale;
Third: The food had been shipped in interstate
commerce.
21 U.S.C. §§ 331(k) and 342(a)(3) and (a)(4).
REQUEST NO. 2
"FOOD"
The term "food" means articles used for food or drink for man
or
other animals and articles used for components of any such
article.
21 U.S.C. § 321(f)
REQUEST NO. 3
"ADULTERATION"
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, food (as
already
defined) may be adulterated in any of several different ways.
For purposes of this case, one way in which food is
adulterated is
if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy substance, or is
otherwise unfit for food.
For purposes of this case, food is also adulterated if it has
been
prepared, packed or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may
have
become contaminated with filth. Under this definition, food is
deemed
adulterated even if it has not actually been contaminated. If you
find
beyond a reasonable doubt that there were insanitary conditions
creating
a reasonable possibility that the food would be contaminated with
filth,
then you should find that the food is adulterated.
The terms "filth" and "insanitary conditions" in these
contexts
should be construed to have their usual and ordinary meanings, and
should not be confined to any scientific or medical definition.
If you find that an article is food, as I have defined food,
and if
you further unanimously agree that it has any of the
characteristics I
have just described, then you should find that such food is
adulterated.
21 U.S.C. §§ 342(a)(3) and (4); United States v. 1200
Cans
Pasteurized Whole Eggs, 339 F. Supp. 131, 136, 140-41 (N.D. Ga.
1972) (§§ 342(a)(3) and (a)(4), cited with approval
in
United States v. An Article of Food, No. 85-7379 (11th Cir.
1985), reprinted in Kleinfeld & Kaplan, Federal Food,
Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, Judicial Record, 1985-1986 41; United
States v.
King's Trading, Inc., 724 F.2d 631, 633 (8th Cir. 1983) (§
342(a)(4)); United States v. H.B. Gregory Co., 502 F.2d 700,
704
(7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1007 (1975)
; 2
Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions
§
53.06 (1992) ("filth" and "insanitary conditions").
REQUEST NO. 4
"INTERSTATE COMMERCE"
The term "interstate commerce" means commerce between any
State and
any place outside that State.
21 U.S.C. §§ 321(a)(1) and (b).
REQUEST NO. 5
CORPORATE OFFICIAL'S LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL FOOD,
DRUG,
AND COSMETIC ACT
In order to find the defendant guilty, you do not have to find
that
he personally committed acts causing food to become adulterated.
You may
find that the defendant caused the adulteration of food if you find
beyond a reasonable doubt that, by reason of his job, the defendant
had
the responsibility and authority to prevent adulteration from
occurring,
or to promptly correct any adulteration, and that he failed to do
so.
Moreover, it is no defense to the crimes charged in the
Information
that the defendant did not intend adulteration to occur, or that he
lacked knowledge of the specific circumstances that caused
adulteration.
The law does not require the defendant to have actively engaged in
wrongdoing in order to be held responsible for the adulteration of
food
being held for sale in his processing plant. All that the law
requires
is that the defendant held such a position of responsibility within
the
enterprise that he had sufficient authority to prevent or correct
the
dangerous conditions and thereby prevent the adulteration of the
food.
Responsible agents of businesses whose services and products affect
the
public health have a legal duty to exercise the foresight and
vigilance
necessary to ensure that their products are not adulterated and are
therefore safe for public consumption. The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act imposes this duty because responsible agents have at
least
the opportunity to learn of, correct, or prevent insanitary
conditions,
whereas even the most cautious consumer is unable to protect
himself.
United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975); United States
v.
Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943); United States v. Cattle
King
Packing Co., Inc., 793 F.2d 232, 239-41 (10th Cir. 1986),
cert. denied, Stanko v. United States, 479
U.S. 985
(1986); Palmer v. United States, 340 F.2d 48 (5th Cir.
1964),
cert. denied, 382 U.S. 903 (1965); United States
v. Gel
Spice Co., Inc., 601 F. Supp. 1205 (E.D. N.Y. 1984); United
States v. Sene X Eleemosynary Corp., Inc., 479 F. Supp. 970
(S.D.
Fl. 1979); 2 Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and
Instructions § 53.07 (1992).
REQUEST NO. 6
JURY'S DUTY TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS
It is your duty as jurors to follow the law as stated in these
instructions and to apply the rules of law so given to the facts as
you
find them from the evidence in the case. You must follow the law as
I
explain it to you whether you agree with that law or not.
Regardless of
any opinion you may have as to what the law should be, it would
violate
your sworn duty to base a verdict on any other view of the law than
that
given in the instructions of the Court.
Counsel have quite properly referred to some of the applicable
rules of law in their closing arguments to you. If, however, any
difference appears to you between the law as stated by counsel and
that
as stated by the Court, you are to be governed by the instructions
given
to you by the Court. Furthermore, in deciding the issues presented
to
you in this trial, you must not be persuaded by bias, prejudice, or
sympathy for or against any of the parties to this case or by any
public
opinion.
11th Cir. Criminal Cases Pattern Jury Instruction 2.1 (1985); 1
Devitt
and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions
§§
10.01, 12.01 (1992).
REQUEST NO.____
"HELD FOR SALE"
A food article is "held for sale" if the producer does not
intend
to use it for his personal consumption.
21 U.S.C. 𨶣(k); United States v. H.B. Gregory Co.,
502
F.2d 700, 704 (7th Cir. 1974) (citing Hipolite Egg Co. v. United
States, 220 U.S. 45 (1911) for proposition that "all articles,
compound or single, not intended for consumption by the producer,
are
designed for sale. . . .), cert. denied, 422 U.S.
1007
(1975). See also United States v. Wiesenfeld
Warehouse
Co., 376 U.S. 86, 92 (1964) (holding that bailee "held goods
for
sale" within meaning of 21 U.S.C. 331(k) even though bailee did not
have
title to goods); United States v. Cassaro, Inc., 443 F.2d
153,
155-56 (1st Cir. 1971); United States v. Sene X Eleemosynary
Corp.,
Inc., 479 F. Supp. 970, 981-82 (S.D. Fl. 1979) (agreeing with
Hipolite definition of "held for sale" and stating that this
term
"has long been afforded a liberal reading").
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY B. CHASNOW
ATTORNEY
Department of Justice
Office of Consumer Litigation
P.O. Box 386
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 307-0101
[cited in USAM 4-8.210;
4-8.245];
Civil Resource Manual 104
| | |