Reference no: EM132295331

Acme Markets, Inc., a large national food chain, and respondent, its CEO/president, Mr. Park, were charged with violating 301 (k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) in an information alleging that they had caused interstate food shipments being held in Acme's Baltimore warehouse to be exposed to rodent contamination. Acme, but not the president, pleaded guilty. At his trial the president of the corporation conceded that providing sanitary conditions for food offered for sale to the public was something that he was "responsible for in the entire operation of the company," and that it was one of the many phases of the company that he assigned to "dependable subordinates. Evidence was admitted over respondent's objection that he had received a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) letter in 1970 concerning insanitary conditions at Acme's Philadelphia warehouse. Respondent conceded that the same individuals were largely responsible for sanitation in both Baltimore and Philadelphia, and that as Acme's president he was responsible for any result that occurred in the company. The trial court, inter alia, instructed the jury that although respondent need not have personally participated in the situation, he must have had "a responsible relationship to the issue." Respondent was convicted, but the Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that although this Court's decision in United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 , had construed the statutory provisions under which respondent had been tried to dispense with the traditional element of "`awareness of some wrongdoing,'" the Court had not construed them as dispensing with the element of "wrongful action." The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's instructions "might well have left the jury with the erroneous impression that [respondent] could be found guilty in the absence of `wrongful action' on his part," and that proof of that element was required by due process. The court also held that the admission in evidence of the 1970 FDA warning to respondent was reversible error.

1. Did the CEO have criminal intent to put adulterated food into commerce? (You must explain what criminal intent means). If yes, explain. If not, how can the CEO’s conduct be criminalized? (this question has a legal basis to it from the reading, not your opinion)

2. To get a conviction, what does the prosecutor have to show? (again there is a legal answer to this question from the reading, not your opinion)

3. What would you have decided if you were the judge? (base your answer on rationale or legal basis)