Case 11.1: United States v. m are P.3d are [3th Cir. role) [13. 1'14} Facts: Jack W owned Quality Egg, LLC, an Iowa egg production company. I ack=s son, Peter W, served as the company's chief operating officer. Quality Egg operated six farm sites with I3 barns that were filled with ve million egg-laying hens. It also had 2-1- barns that were lled with young chickens that had not yet begun to layr eggs. Additionally, the company owned several processing plants where eggs were cleaned, packed, and shipped. lack also owned and operated several egg m companies in Maine, and Peter worked at the se facilities. in EDGE, salmonella enteritidis (\"salmonella\") tests conducted at the Maine facilities came baclr positive. The W succeeded in eliminating salmonella from their Maine facilities by following the recommendations of hired consultants, including a poultry disease specialist and a rodent control expert. In its Iowa facility, however, Quality Egg did not test or divert eggs om the market despite receiving multiple positive results om hens indicating a potential for salmonella. Experts hired by Quality Egg reconmaended adopting the same safety measures in Iowa as had been used in Maine. Although the Wilt/QB?! claimed they adopted all of the recommendations, the precautions implemented by Quality Egg failed to eradicate salmonella. In August 201i], federal and state officials determined that a salmonella outbreak had originated at Quality Egg's facilities, resulting in approximately moon American consumers falling ill with salmonello sis. In response, lQuality Egg recalled eggs that had been shipped om five of its six Iowa farm sites between May and August 2011]. After a Food and Drug Administration {FDA} inspection of Quality Egg's facilities revealed dangerous conditions that could lead to contamination, the government began a criminal investigation of the company's food safety practices and ultimately filed criminal charges for failing to prevent or correct a violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act {FDCA}. The W both pled guilty, as responsible corporate ofcers of Quality Egg, LLC, for introducing eggs that had been adulterated with salmonella into interstate commerce. The trial court sentenced Iack and Peter to three months: imprisonment. The W appeal, arguing that their prison sentences were unreasonable and disproportionate because they had no specic knowledge the eggs the company distributed had salmonella. Issue: Was the three months sentence imposed on I aclr and Peter unreasonable and disproportionate? Ruling: No. The LIE. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit afrmed the trial court's decision to sentence the W to incarceration. The court determined that under the FDCA responsible corporate officer concept, individuals who by reason of their position in the corporation have the responsibility and authority to take necessary measures to prevent or remedy violations of the FDCA and fail to do so may he held criminally liable as responsible corporate agents, regardless of whether they were actually aware of or intended to cause the violation. The court agreed with the trial court's ndings that the W5, lcnew or should have known of the risks posed by the insanitary conditions at Quality Egg in Iowa, lcnew or should have known that additional testing needed to be performed before the suspected shell eggs were distributed to consumers, and knew or should have known of proper remedial and preventative measures to reduce the presence of salmonella. Answers to case questions: 1. Why is it important in this case that the DeCosters' conduct violated the FDCA? 2. What was the DeCosters' theory of the case on appeal? 3. Given what we know about the impact of the salmonella outbreak in 2010, would there be any tort claims against Quality Egg? Against the DeCosters? 1. The DeCosters cannot be found guilty of violating federal criminal laws prohibiting the sale of adulterated food unless the evidence demonstrates their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt 2. The DeCosters have been convicted of a victimless crime, because there is no direct victim but public health and safety are jeopardized. 3. DeCosters cannot be convicted of the crime of sale of adulterated food unless the evidence establishes both the mens rea and actus reus elements of the crime 4. The DeCosters have been convicted of selling adulterated food, a federal common law crime. 5. As a separate business entity, Quality Egg can be convicted of criminal conduct under the Model Penal Code