The Seventh Circuit had a busy week, with eight new opinions in criminal cases. In this post, I’ll discuss three that deal primarily with substantive criminal law issues. A subsequent post will cover the sentencing and procedure cases.
Two of the opinions in this post deal with the difficult and important question of whether it is money laundering when a brothel purchases advertising. But, before getting to that question, I’ll discuss a case that offers an unusual dressing-down of a federal prosecutor. (There’s actually a pun in that last sentence — read on to see what I mean.)
The legal question in United States v. Farinella (Nos. 08-1839 & 08-1860) was whether those “best when purchased by” labels you find on food packages really mean anything to consumers. Do they indicate that spoilage is imminent, or are they essentially meaningless marketing devices, akin to claims that a product is “new and improved?”
Farinella, the defendant, purchased 1.6 million bottles of “Henri’s Salad Dressing” for resale at so-called “dollar stores.” He presumably bought them at a discount because the bottles were past, or at least fast-approaching, the “best when purchased by” date stamped on each bottle by the manufacturer. The manufacturer’s label would obviously make resale more difficult, but Farinella solved this problem by covering the original labels with new labels listing a later purchase date. Of course, no one would hold this up as a model of business ethics. But was it a federal crime?
The New York Times reports today that President Obama is set to nominate David Hamiliton, a federal district court judge in Indiana, to an open seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton is said to be a moderate who has the support of both of Indiana’s senators, Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Richard Lugar. This will be Obama’s first judicial nomination, so it will no doubt be watched especially carefully for indications of what is to come as other openings are filled.