Criminal Law

In prosecution on charges stemming from defendant-hospital administrator's solicitation of kickbacks from drug manufacturer for purpose of ensuring hospital's continued use of manufacturer's drug, Dist. Ct. did not err in rejecting defendant's claim that prosecutor violated Brady by withholding evidence of HHS investigation of suspected misconduct by drug manufacturer that led to death of patients using said drug. Defendant's counsel was aware of said investigation and could have requested results of investigation. Moreover, said evidence would not have been helpful to defendant's defense to extent that jury could have believed that defendant played some role in sustaining risk of death to said patients by ensuring that hospital use said drug.

In prosecution on charge of tax evasion and failure to file tax return, defendant waived any statutory speedy trial claim by failing to move (prior to trial) for dismissal of indictment based on said issue. Ct. rejected defendant's contention that his claim can still be reviewed under plain error standard. Moreover, defendant failed to establish any constitutional speedy trial claim where record showed that defendant bore more responsibility for 286-day delay than govt. Remand, though, was required with respect to Dist. Ct.'s imposition of $997,582.19 restitution order, where, even though Dist. Ct. possessed authority to impose restitution for tax offenses as condition of supervised release, record was unclear as to whether Dist. Ct. actually imposed restitution as condition of supervised release, or rather as independent component of actual sentence.

In prosecution on charge of drug conspiracy and other drug-related charges, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in giving jury instruction regarding government's use of deceptive investigation practices where record showed that govt. had used wiretaps, undercover agents and informants to gather evidence against defendant. Language of instruction, which told jury that it was not illegal for gov't. to use such techniques, was accurate statement of law, and Dist. Ct. could give such instruction where it was alerted to govt.'s specific concern about effect of wiretap evidence on jurors. Moreover, Ct. rejected defendant's argument that instruction gave jury improper impression that key testimony of govt. witness, who testified that he supplied defendant and others with drugs, should have been taken at face value.