United States v. Crinel, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 15-61 SECTION: "E" (2)
| Decision Date | 27 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 15-61 SECTION: "E" (2) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LISA CRINEL, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Before the Court are six post-trial motions filed by the Defendants1 in this criminal matter with respect to all counts of conviction: (1) Defendant Shelton Barnes' Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and, in the Alternative for New Trial, and in the Further Alternative, to Arrest Judgment;2 (2) Defendant Jonathon Nora's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and, in the Alternative, for New Trial;3 (3) Defendant Michael Jones' Renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal;4 (4) Defendant Paula Jones' Motion for Acquittal, and, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial;5 (5) Defendant Henry Evans' Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, and Alternatively, Motion for New Trial;6 and (6) Defendant Gregory Molden's Motion for Acquittal, and in the Alternative for New Trial, and in the Further Alternative, to Arrest Judgment.7 The Government opposes the Defendants' post-trial motions.8 Defendant Barnes filed a rebuttal memorandum.9 In February 2018, the Defendants filed supplemental memoranda in support of their post-trial motions.10 The Government filed an opposition to Defendants' supplemental memoranda.11 Defendants Paula Jones and Henry Evans filed reply memoranda.12
For the following reasons, the Defendants' motions are DENIED.
On March 12, 2015, a federal grand jury returned a twenty-six-count Indictment against the Defendants and sixteen other co-defendant/co-conspirators, relating to their alleged roles in a conspiracy to defraud Medicare.13 On April 21, 2016, the grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment that included most of the same charges as those in the original indictment but no longer included charges associated with defendants who had pleaded guilty by that time.14 On September 8, 2016, the grand jury returned a forty-seven-count Second Superseding Indictment that included most of the same charges as those in the original and First Superseding Indictment, but no longer included charges associated with the defendants who had pleaded guilty by then.15
The Defendants were charged as follows in the Second Superseding Indictment. Defendants Henry Evans, Michael Jones, Paula Jones, Shelton Barnes, Gregory Molden, and Jonathon Nora were charged in Count 1, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and Count 2, conspiracy to receive and pay illegal health care kickbacks.16 Defendant Shelton Barnes also was indicted on Counts 3-7, individual counts of health care fraud relating to patient HaHa; Counts 8-11, relating to patient KiSt; Counts 11-17, relating to patientArGi; and Count 47 relating to obstruction of a federal audit. Defendant Michael Jones was indicted on Counts 18-21, relating to patient ArGi; Count 22-26, relating to patient LiSc; and Count 27, relating to patient EvLa. Defendant Henry Evans was indicted on Counts 27 and 29, relating to patient JeJo; Counts 30 and 31, relating to patient JoWi; and Counts 43-46, relating to patient MaGr.17
Trial in this matter began on April 10, 2017. On May 9, 2017, after sixteen days of trial testimony and more than two days of deliberation, the jury convicted Defendants Shelton Barnes, Gregory Molden, Jonathon Nora, and Paula Jones on all counts for which they were charged in the Second Superseding Indictment.18 Defendant Henry Evans was found not guilty as to as to Counts 1, 2, and 28-30, but was found guilty as to Counts 31 and 43-46. Defendant Michael Jones was found guilty as to Counts 1, 2, 18, and 22-27, and not guilty as to Counts 19, 20, and 21.
Following the verdict, Defendants Shelton Barnes, Jonathon Nora, Michael Jones, Paula Jones, and Henry Evans timely filed their post-trial motions pursuant to Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.19 On July 11, 2017, the Government filed its Omnibus Opposition to the Defendants' post-trial motions.20 The Court held oral argument on the Defendants' motions on August 15, 2017.21
On February 5, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' joint motion for leave to brief the Court on the applicability of the Fifth Circuit's recent decision in United Statesv. Ganji with regard the Defendants' convictions for conspiracy to commit health care fraud.22 In Ganji, the Fifth Circuit found that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant in that case, Dr. Ganji, entered into an agreement to defraud Medicare.23 At the Ganji trial, the Government introduced indirect evidence of concerted action—doctors and nurses who spoke of their own fraudulent actions—but the Government elicited no testimony that any person agreed with Dr. Ganji to carry out these activities.24 In addition, Dr. Ganji "provided extensive, undisputed testimony" of her innocence that was unrebutted by the Government.25 The Fifth Circuit found that the Government "relied solely on inferences to support the fraud charge and attempted to use those same inferences to support a larger agreement," and, as a result, reversed the jury's verdict of guilty on the conspiracy to commit health care fraud charge.26 The Fifth Circuit also reversed Dr. Ganji's conviction for health care fraud because the Government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew patient Stewart was not homebound.27
The Defendants duly filed supplemental memoranda in support of their post-trial motions,28 to which the Government responded.29
A motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 "is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction."30 When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must determine whether "a rational jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the essential elements of the offense to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt."31 The court determines "only whether the jury made a rational decision, not whether its verdict was correct on the issue of guilt or innocence."32 "[I]f the fact finder was presented with sufficient evidence to support the verdict reached, that verdict must be upheld."33 34 Nevertheless, "a verdict may not rest on mere suspicion, speculation, or conjecture, or on an overly attenuated piling of inference on inference."35
To support a conviction for conspiracy to commit health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: "(1) two or morepersons made an agreement to commit health care fraud; (2) the defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the agreement; and (3) the defendant joined in the agreement . . . with the intent to further the unlawful purpose."36 The Fifth Circuit has emphasized that the Government need not show direct evidence of the conspiracy. Rather, "each element may be inferred from circumstantial evidence."37 Nevertheless, the Government must do more than "pile inference upon inference upon which to base a conspiracy charge."38
More specifically, the law "criminalizes the payment of any funds or benefits designed to encourage an individual to refer another party to a Medicare provider for services to be paid for by the Medicare program."40
To prove a conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Government must show "(1) an agreement between two or more persons to pursue an unlawful objective; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the unlawful objective and voluntary agreement to join the conspiracy; and (3) an overt act by one or more of the members of the conspiracy infurtherance of the objective of the conspiracy."41 The defendant must have "acted willfully, that is, with the specific intent to do something the law forbids."42
To prove health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347, the Government must show that the defendant knowingly and willfully executed "a scheme or artifice—(1) to defraud any health care benefit program; or (2) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises," any health care benefit program's money in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care services.43 As with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, health care fraud under § 1347 requires proof of knowledge and specific intent to defraud.44 "However, this proof may be inferred from circumstantial evidence."45
Count 47 charges Shelton Barnes with obstruction of a federal audit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1516. Section 1516 provides:
Whoever, with intent to deceive or defraud the United States, endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede a Federal auditor in the performance of official duties relating to a person, entity, or program receiving in excess of $100,000, directly or indirectly, from the United States in any 1 year period under a contract or subcontract, grant, or cooperative agreement . . . shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.46
To prove obstruction of a federal audit, the Government must establish: (1) that the defendant endeavored to...
To continue reading
Request your trial