Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Prosecutorial misconduct in the War on Drugs, Doctor Subdivision

leave a comment »

The governmental stance on drugs is out of control: overbearing, inappropriate, and even illegal in many cases. Here’s an example by Clarence Walker in Drug War Chronicle:

In what could become an historic case, a Florida doctor acquitted of drug dealing charges over his prescribing practices is asking the US Supreme Court to reinstate a $600,000 award made to him by a lower court after federal prosecutors were found to have engaged in misconduct that was “vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.” That language comes from the Hyde Amendment, enacted in 1997, which gives federal judges the power to force the government to pay attorney’s fees to acquitted defendants if the actions of those prosecutors met that standard of misconduct.

The case of Florida physician Dr. Ali Shaygan has been closely watched by pain-management doctors — an area in which the federal government has waged a fierce “war on prescription doctors” — a war fueled by a rising death toll in recent years from prescription drug overdoses in America, but also preceding that rise. Since 2003, according to DEA, hundreds of physicians across the nation have been charged in federal or state court for illegally dispensing narcotic pain medicine to patients.

This past August, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the trial court decision awarding the money to Shaygan, who had operated a Miami pain clinic. He was acquitted in March 2009 of 131 counts of illegally distributing narcotics to patients, including one case where a patient died of an overdose.

Shaygan’s attorneys charged that two Assistant US Attorneys, Sean Cronin and Andrea Hoffman, as well as a DEA agent, had acted “vexatiously” and withheld materially important evidence after Shaygan was originally charged in a 23-count indictment. US Circuit Court Judge Alan Gold, who presided over the high-profile trial, agreed that prosecutors violated disclosure requirements by withholding information from the defense and the court and ordered the cash award.

Judge Gold also accused the government of launching a separate “tactical” effort to disqualify the doctor’s attorney, David Markus, shortly before the trial began. In that effort, which Gold characterized as part of a scheme to undermine the defendant’s rights to a fair trial, the prosecutors failed to notify the defense that the DEA had attempted to manipulate two witnesses in the case into trying to entrap Markus into paying off witnesses to give favorable testimony at the trial to help the doctor beat the rap.

Following a sanction hearing after the doctor’s acquittal in 2009, Judge Gold issued a scathing ruling against the prosecutors. The government conduct was so “profoundly disturbing that it raises troubling issues about the integrity of those who wield enormous power over the people they prosecute,” Gold concluded.

After Gold requested that the Justice Department investigate the government’s misconduct, prosecutor Cronin conceded to the Miami Herald, “We should have done a better job,” but insisted that “at no time was I acting in bad faith.”

He said he authorized secret recordings of attorney Markus because a witness, Courtney Tucker, had told a DEA agent the defense might be trying to tamper with her testimony. Yet Tucker contradicted Cronin’s claim when she testified that a DEA agent had tried to pressure her to tailor her testimony to bolster the prosecution’s case against Dr. Shaygan.

When federal prosecutors appealed the cash award to the 11th Circuit, a sharply divided panel overturned it, holding that Gold had overreached and wrongly interpreted the Hyde Amendment by applying the incorrect legal standard for awarding the fees under the statue. The appeals court majority also held that “as long as a prosecutor had an objectively reasonable basis in law (not frivolous and not vexatious), an award of attorney fees under the Hyde Amendment is improper.” One judge concluded that the overall prosecution and allegations on the original indictment were “objectively valid.”

But in a harsh dissent, Judge Beverly Martin wrote that the majority opinion “will render trial judges mere spectators of extreme government misconduct.”

Markus told the Chronicle the appeals court reversal was not what he expected. “The decision was surprising given how the oral argument went and how thorough Judge Gold’s order was,” Markus said, adding that he was appealing to the Supreme Court.

Now a coalition of former federal judges and prosecutors, members of the criminal justice think tank the Constitution Project has signed onto an amicus brief supporting Markus’s writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court decision and reinstate the cash award in US v. Shaygan.

“When a court bends the law to excuse a prosecutor’s bad faith, public confidence in the criminal justice system suffers,” the Constitution Project brief said.

Just Another Pain Doctor Prosecution

The wheels of justice in Dr. Shaygan’s case began turning on June 9, 2007, when . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

1 November 2012 at 10:39 am

Posted in Drug laws, Government, Law

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.