Opinion ID: 812956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Verdict Sheet and the Jury’s Verdict

Text: Because I believe that the FDCA’s misbranding provision may constitutionally be applied to Caronia’s conduct, I next address Caronia’s heightened scrutiny on the statute’s criminal penalties. See 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2724 (2010). Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously applied Central Hudson to statutes that provide for or trigger criminal punishment for speech. See Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 177 (1999); 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 490 n.3 (1996); Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 61–62 (1983). 27 remaining arguments: (1) that the district court erred in breaking down the conspiracy charge on the verdict sheet into two subissues; and (2) that the jury rendered an inconsistent verdict by convicting Caronia of conspiring to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce a misbranded drug while finding him not guilty of conspiring to do an act to a drug that would result in it being misbranded. The first count of a two-count information charged Caronia with conspiring both (1) to introduce into interstate commerce a drug that was misbranded and (2) to do an act with respect to a drug that would result in that drug being misbranded.9 With respect to that count, the district court submitted a two-part verdict sheet to the jury which asked: 1. How do you find the defendant, ALFRED CARONIA, on Count One of the Information? (a) Conspiracy to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce a drug, Xyrem, that was misbranded? NOT GUILTY _____ GUILTY _____ (b) Conspiracy to do an act with respect to a drug, Xyrem, when such drug was held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce when such act would result in Xyrem being misbranded? NOT GUILTY _____ GUILTY _____ The jury concluded that Caronia was guilty with respect to question (a) and not guilty with respect to question (b). 9 The second count charged Caronia with doing an act with respect to a drug that resulted in that drug being misbranded. 28 Caronia argues that the district court erred by subdividing the conspiracy charge on the verdict sheet because, he claims, the district court essentially split the charge into two separate counts. But we have held that a conspiracy charge may allege an agreement to commit more than one offense, see United States v. Coriaty, 300 F.3d 244, 250 (2d Cir. 2002) (“We have upheld convictions for multi-object conspiracies charged in the conjunctive even when there was insufficient evidence to support one of the objects of the conspiracy.”), and that a district court does not impermissibly constructively amend a charge by subdividing an offense into parts, see United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458, 470 (2d Cir. 2009) (“No constructive amendment resulted when the District Court broke the single offense into two parts to be addressed by the jury.”). I therefore find no error in the verdict sheet. Caronia further argues that the jury rendered an inconsistent verdict by finding him not guilty of conspiring to do an act to a drug that would result in it being misbranded while finding him guilty of conspiring to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce a misbranded drug. But these verdicts were not inconsistent—for example, the jury may have concluded that the drug was not being held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce. And even assuming the verdicts were inconsistent, “the convicted defendant’s protection against an irrational verdict is his ability to have the courts review the 29 sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction,” United States v. Acosta, 17 F.3d 538, 545 (2d Cir. 1994). There was ample evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Caronia conspired to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce a misbranded drug. Indeed, Caronia was caught on tape with Dr. Gleeson suggesting off-label uses of Xyrem to doctors. I therefore see no error in the verdict sheet and no inconsistency requiring reversal or vacatur in the jury’s verdict.