Bloomberg Law’s combination of innovative analytics, research tools and practical guidance provides you with everything you need to be a successful litigator.
July 6 — Federal prison sentences handed down to two egg company executives in the wake of a multi-state salmonella outbreak are constitutional, a split Eighth Circuit panel held ( United States v. DeCoster, 2016 BL 216013, 8th Cir., No. 15-1890, 7/6/16 ).
The “relatively short,” three-month sentences imposed on Austin and Peter DeCoster violated neither their Eighth Amendment nor their due process rights, the court said in the 2-1 decision.
The prosecutions under a provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act makes executives criminally liable for failing to prevent or remedy “the conditions which gave rise to the charges against them,” the court said.
It upheld the sentences July 6.
“We conclude that the record here shows that the DeCosters are liable for negligently failing to prevent the salmonella outbreak” at the commercial egg farm they operated in Iowa, the court said.
The appeal stemmed from salmonella-tainted eggs shipped from the DeCosters's commercial farm in Iowa. The multi-state outbreak sickened thousands of consumers in 2010.
The appeals challenged the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa's reliance on the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine in sending the DeCosters to jail (44 PSLR 524, 5/23/16).
The doctrine makes executives criminally liable by virtue of their oversight of company activities, without proof of intent to commit the company's underlying strict liability crimes.
The DeCosters argued, in part, that the sentences were improper because they didn't know the eggs the company distributed actually contained salmonella.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed that argument.
Defendants prosecuted under the relevant FDCA provisions (21 U.S.C. §§331(a), 333(a)(1)) “are not required to have known that they violated the FDCA to be subject to the statutory penalties,” the court said.
Here, where the government alleged the DeCosters introduced adulterated eggs into commerce, the court also rejected the argument that the sentences were grossly disproportionate to the crimes.
“When defining the statutory penalties in the FDCA, Congress recognized the importance of placing the burden on corporate officers to protect consumers ‘who are wholly helpless' from purchasing adulterated food products which could make them ill,” Judge Diane E. Murphy wrote for the court.
Judge Raymond W. Gruender concurred in the judgment, but said imprisonment based on vicarious liability “would raise serious due process concerns.”
Here, however, those concerns weren't evident because the district court found the DeCosters negligent, he said.
Senior Judge C. Arlen Beam dissented. In his view, the DeCosters lacked the “guilty mind” on which a prison sentence must be based.
“While it might be possible to concoct an actionable interpretation of §333(a)(1) that omits a mens rea requirement, Congress has no power to enact a federal statute that violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause,” Beam said.
Judge Diane E. Murphy wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Raymond W. Gruender, who filed a concurring opinion.
Senior Judge C. Arlem Beam dissented.
The law offices of Sidley Austin represent Austin DeCoster.
Dornan, Lustgarten & Troia represent Peter DeCoster.
To contact the reporter on this story: Steven M. Sellers in Washington at email@example.com.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Patrick at firstname.lastname@example.org
The opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/United_States_v_DeCoster_No_151890_No_151891_2016_BL_216013_8th_C
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)