United States v. Fuhai, 3:16-CR-194
| Decision Date | 14 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 3:16-CR-194,3:16-CR-194 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FUHAI LI, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
Presently before the Court is a "Motion for Bill of Particulars and Further Discovery and Points of Authority" (Doc. 24) filed by Defendant Fuhai Li. For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be denied.
Defendant Fuhai Li was a physician licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Defendant held a Pennsylvania medical license, as well as a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration number, and operated a practice within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Defendant represented himself to be a specialist in neurology and pain management.
On July 20, 2016, a federal grand jury returned a 24-count Indictment charging Defendant with various violations of federal law. Counts 1 through 15 charge violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), for Defendant's distribution and dispensing of controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. Count 16 charges a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), for Defendant's distribution and dispensing of a controlled substance resulting in serious bodily injuryand death of a person. Count 17 charges a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 861(f), for Defendant's distribution and dispensing of a controlled substance to a pregnant individual. Counts 18 and 19 charge violations of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), for Defendant's maintaining locations at 104 Bennett Avenue, Suite 1B, Milford, Pennsylvania, and 200 3rd Street, Milford Pennsylvania, for the purpose of unlawfully distributing controlled substances. Counts 20 and 21 charge violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, for Defendant engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from a specified unlawful activity. Counts 22 through 24 charge violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, for Defendant's tax evasion. The Indictment also includes a forfeiture allegation seeking forfeiture of various property and United States currency. (See Doc. 1.)
On December 21, 2016, Defendant, through counsel, filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars and Further Discovery and Points of Authority. The Motion is, in effect, multiple motions,2 and can be broken down into the following requests: (1) a bill of particulars (Doc. 24, "Point I"); (2) production of evidence pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Id. "Point II"); (3) production of exculpatory evidence and impeachment material pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny (Id.); (4) immediate notice of all evidence the Government intends to offer pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b), 803(24), 804(b)(5), and 801(d)(2) (Id.); (5) production of "information related to the grand jury proceedings" (Id. "Point III"); (6) preservation and production of handwritten notes made by witnesses or made in interviews of witnesses or other persons with knowledge of relevant facts (Id. "Point IV"); and (7) leave to file additional motions following discovery of the information sought (Id."Point V"). The Government filed its Brief in Opposition on January 3, 2017. Defendant did not file a Reply Brief. Defendant's Motions are ripe for disposition.
Defendant moves for an order directing the Government to provide a bill of particulars, seeking additional information related to specific dates, times, and locations of the alleged offenses; the persons to whom Defendant provided controlled substances contrary to best medical practices; the quantity of controlled substances Defendant provided to persons contrary to best medical practices; and the amount of monies paid to or received by Defendant for provision of medical services contrary to best medical practices. (Doc. 24, at 4-5.)
"The purpose of the bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges brought against him to adequately prepare his defense, to avoid surprise during the trial and to protect him against a second prosecution for an inadequately described offense." United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49, 63-64 (3d Cir. 1971). A bill of particulars "is not to be used by the defendant as a discovery tool," United States v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 1384, 1389 (W.D. Pa. 1983), but rather is appropriate only when "an indictment's failure to provide factual or legal information significantly impairs the defendant's ability to prepare his defense or is likely to lead to prejudicial surprise at trial," United States v. Rosa, 891 F.2d 1063, 1066 (3d Cir. 1989). In considering whether to grant a motion for a bill of particulars, courts must consider "numerous countervailing considerations," including: unfairness to the government, Rosa, 891 F.2d at 1066, the sufficiency of the indictment, Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 576 F. Supp. at 1389, and the extent to which the government has provided discovery, United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754, 772 (3d Cir. 2005). At bottom, United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1111 (3d Cir. 1985) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
A bill of particulars is not warranted in this case. The details provided in the twenty-three page Indictment informs Defendant of the nature of the charges brought against him and provides sufficient information to enable him to conduct his own investigation. See United States v. Vitillo, 490 F.3d 314, 321 (3d Cir. 2007) ().
The present Indictment sets forth the elements of each offense charged, cites to the relevant statutes, and identifies the general time and location for each offense charged. At the outset, the Indictment opens with an Introduction section that notes relevant law, defines the controlled substances at issue, and states the allegations of Defendant's illegal distribution of controlled substances with sufficient specificity. (Doc. 10, at 1-9.) Additionally, the individual Counts provide further details. Counts 1-15, charging Defendant with distribution and dispensing of controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), links each individual Count with the relevant dates of distribution, a particular patient, and a particular controlled substance; recites the elements of the offense; and cites to the relevant statute. (Doc. 1, at 9-10.) Count 16, charging Defendant with distribution and dispensing of a controlled substance resulting in serious bodily injury and death of a person in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), specifies the approximate date on which Defendant allegedly violated the statute, recitesthe elements of the offense, and cites to the relevant statute. Count 17, charging Defendant with distribution and dispensing of a controlled substance to a pregnant individual in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 861(f), also specifies the approximate date on which Defendant allegedly violated the statute, recites the elements of the offense, and cites to the relevant statute. Counts 18 and 19, charging Defendant with maintaining drug-involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), list the specific address of the alleged drug-involved premises, note the relevant date range, recite the elements of the offense, and cite to the relevant statute. Counts 20 and 21, charging Defendant with engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from a specified unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, are linked to a specific date and description of the transaction, recite the elements of the offense, and cite to the relevant statute. Finally, Counts 22, 23, and 24, charging Defendant with tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, specify the tax due and owing for each year that evasion is charged, list the elements of the offense, and cite to the relevant statute. The Indictment is thus sufficiently detailed to allow Defendant to conduct his own investigation. See United States v. Johnson, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 6433176, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2016).
Furthermore, the Government has asserted, and Defendant has not denied, that Defendant has already been provided with discovery in this case. See United States v. Shabazz, No. 3:12-CR-64, 2012 WL 5334480, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2012). Specifically, the Government notes that it has provided Defendant with the "mirror image" of all medical files the Government seized from Defendant's office and home in January 2015, so that Defendant has an exact electronic copy of those files. Additionally, the Government has provided Defendant with all financial information in its possession, an expert report of Dr. Stephen Thomas, who is expected to testify at trial,and the affidavit in support of the search warrant executed in January 2015 at Defendant's home and office.3
Accordingly, because the Indictment and discovery sufficiently inform Defendant of the nature of the charges brought against him and provide Defendant with sufficient information to conduct his own investigation, the Court finds that Defendant is able to adequately prepare his defense and avoid surprise at trial. Thus, Defendant's request for a bill of particulars will be denied.
Defendant moves for immediate production of "all Brady material" sought in Defendant's Motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial