IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

NO. 05-4474 ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

V.

WILLIAM ELIOT HURWITZ,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

at Alexandria The Honorable Leonard D. Wexler, District Judge

BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES

Paul J. McNulty Gene Rossi United States Attorney Mark D. Lytle

Richard D. Cooke

2 100 Jamieson Avenue Alexandria, Virginia 223 14

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

(703) 299-3700

Attorneys for the United States ofAmerica

Andrew L. Schlafly AAPS General Counsel

939 Old Chester Rd. Far Hills, NJ 0793 1

aschlafly @a01 . corn (908) 719-8608

New York ofice: 52 1 Fifth Ave. - 17* Floor New York, NY 10 175 2 12-292-45 10 2 12-2 14-0354 (fa)

October 1 1,2005

Jane Orient, M.D. A A P S 1601 N. Tucson Blvd. - Suite 9 Tucson, AZ 85716-3450

Re: United States v. William Hurwitz. M.D.

Dear Jane,

Per your request, enclosed is a copy of the recently filed brief by the

prosecutor in the foregoing matter.

'sincerely,

Enclosure cc: Ken Christman

Jim Pendleton

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.-

I -

< -

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................... v

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ...................................... 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. Defendants patients ..................................... 7

1. Robert Woodson ..................................... 7

2. Timothy and Mary Urbani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Kevin Fuller and Cindy Horn .......................... 10

4. PeterGrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5. Brett McCarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6. Peter Tyskowski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

7. Patricksnowden .................................... 15

8. Linda Lalmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

9. Carl Shortridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

B. Governments experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

C. Defendants testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

a m

1

1

SUMMARYOFARGUMENT ....................................... 21

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

I. Defendant fails to identify key differences between the warrant in Groh and this case and failed to preserve this claim. The warrant also was not overbroad ...................................... 23

A. Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

B. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1. No violation of Groh occurred ......................... 23

2. The affidavit for the search warrant justified the scope ofthesearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

11. Defendants proposed good-faith instruction was legally erroneous, and the district courts instructions did not constitute plain error . . . . . 32

A. Standard of Review .................................... 32

B. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

1. Defendants proposed instruction was legally erroneous because it added an expansive willfulness standard requiring only good intentions and eliminated an objective standard by allowing defendant to act according to what he believed to be proper medical practice.. . . . . . . . 33

a. Section 84 1 (a) requires knowing not willful conduct, so no bad purpose is required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

b. The presumption of scienter leads courts to infer only knowing, not willful conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

.. 11

I I m i i

c. Cheek interpreted a statute expressly requiring willful conduct ................................. 37

d. Defendant made a strategic choice to request a good-faith defense that would authorize him to reject well-accepted medical practice and prescribe drugs when he knew those drugs would be sold illegally . . . . . . 38

e. Neither Tran Trong Cuong nor Moore support defendants proposed instruction .................... 40

f. None of the relevant statutes or regulations support defendants proposed instruction .................... 4 1

g. Defendants proposed instruction would lead to absurd results 43 .................................

h. Cases decided under the Harrison Act do not control. The Controlled Substances Act was intended to strengthen law enforcement authority and prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illegitimate channels . . . . . . . . 44

2. The district courts instructions did not constitute plain error 46

a. At trial, defendant avoided the new theory he uses on appeal because it would have been insufficient to provide a defense for his conduct, explaining why he failed to raise the new theory below . . . . . . . . . . . 47

b. Fairly read, the instructions taken as a whole required the jury to find that defendant knew he was practicing outside the bounds of generally accepted medicine. The instructions were not plainly erroneous . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3. The district court did explain practice outside the bounds of medicine, and defendant offered no meaningful alternative ............................... 50

111. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the three pieces of evidence that defendant identifies in this 44-day trial . . . . . . . 52

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Standard of Review 52

B. Analysis ............................................. 53

i a m a a a a a B

1. The district court properly applied FRE 403 to exclude evidence that defendant sent records to the DEA . . . . . . . . . . 53

2. The Boards compromise statement, in an order revoking defendants license, saying that he believed he was acting in good faith was irrelevant and improper under FRE 704(b) ................................... 54

3. The FAQs were not party admissions and would have wasted time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

IV. The district court did not err in carrying out an agreement made at voir dire allowing Juror 12 to be excused. Defendant never objected to the agreement and cannot complain now ...................... 58

A. Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

B. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSION .....................

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

. . . . .

. . . .

........................ 59

........................ 65

iv

L

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

I'

CASES Page

Arthur Andersen LLP v . United States. 125 S.Ct. 2129 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . 34. 35

Artichoke Joe's Cal . Grand Casino v . Norton. 353 F.3d 712 (9th Cir . 2003) . . . 64

Bollenbach v . United States. 326 U.S . 607 (1946) ........................ 51

Boyd v . United States. 271 U.S. 104 (1926) ............................. 44

Boyde v . California. 494 U.S. 370 (1 990) .............................. 33

Bryan v . United States. 524 U.S. 184 (1998) ............................ 35

Carter v . United States. 530 U.S. 255 (2000) ............................ 36

Cheek v . United States. 498 U.S. 192 (1 99 1) ............................ 37

Gonzales v . Raich. 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) ........................... 44. 45

Groh v . Ramirez. 540 U.S. 55 1 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. 24

In re McNallen. 62 F.3d 619 (4th Cir . 1995) ............................ 39

Jones v . United States. 527 U S . 373 (1999) .......................... 32. 47

Kotteakos v . United States. 328 U.S. 750 (1946) ......................... 52

Lewis v . INS. 194 F.3d 539 (4th Cir . 1999) ............................. 26

Linder v . United States. 268 U.S. 5 (1925) .......................... .44. 45

Martin v . Cavalier Hotel Corp., 48 F.3d 1343 (4th Cir . 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

McCawer v . Lee. 221 F.3d 583 (4th Cir . 2000) .......................... 26

V

44

49

Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, 541 U.S. 125 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

United States v. Abbas, 74 F.3d 506 (4th Cir. 1996) ......................

United States v. Acker, 52 F.3d 509 (4th Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,61,62

United States v. Arroyo, 406 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) ............................ 34

United St