United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
R.
DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The
court previously granted the Government's Motion in
Limine (Doc. 71) to Exclude Evidence of “Good
Care” and of Patients' Positive Experiences at Care
Complete Medical Clinic. (Doc. 103.) This Memorandum Opinion
supplements the court's reasons for granting the motion,
in addition to the reasons stated at the pretrial conference
on February 5, 2019. (Doc. 103.)
The
Government seeks to exclude as irrelevant “any evidence
. . . that Care Complete Medical Clinic provided legitimate
medical care to patients who are not the basis of any charge
in the indictment;” and “any evidence that some
patients . . . had a positive experience at Care Complete
Medical Clinic.” (Id. at 1.)
In general, the term “in limine” “refer[s]
to any motion, whether made before or during trial, to
exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence
is actually offered.” Luce v. United States,
469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). A ruling on evidence in limine
“aid[s] the trial process by enabling the Court to rule
in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted
evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial,
without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.
[It] also may save the parties time, effort and cost in
preparing and presenting their cases.” Bowden ex
rel. Bowden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. CIV. A.
99-D-880-E, 2001 WL 617521, *1 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 20, 2001)
(internal citations and quotations omitted). Nevertheless,
“it is the better practice to wait until trial to rule
on objections when admissibility substantially depends upon
what facts may be developed there. Thus, the motion in limine
is an effective approach only if the evidence at issue is
clearly inadmissible.” Id. (citations
omitted).
Murphy v. Precise, No. 1:16-CV-0143-SLB-DAB, 2017 WL
6002581, *1 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 1, 2017).
Among
other things, the Indictment charges defendants with health
care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud.
Defendant Patrick Emeka Ifediba is charged with unlawfully
distributing and dispensing controlled substances. Both
defendants are charged with money laundering.
The
Government asks the court to exclude “evidence that
other patients - none of whom form the basis of any charge in
the indictment - received legally prescribed controlled
substances and/or medically necessary allergy tests and
treatment, ” on the ground that such evidence is
“irrelevant and impermissible ‘good
character' evidence.” (Doc. 71 at 3.) Defendant
Ngozi Justina Ozuligbo contends:
“[E]vidence as to proper treatment she provided would
be relevant to determine whether or not her actions on other
occasions may have been intentional or simply negligent or
reckless acts. The fact she may have been involved in
thousands of allergy test for which only ten or whatever
number were improper would be relevant to a jury's
consideration as to whether she had a fraudulent intent, or
was simply making negligent, or reckless acts in the
performance of her services as a nurse in the Complete
Medical Care Clinic. The jury should be allowed to hear
testimony from persons that Defendant Ozuligbo saw many
patients. Defendant Ozuligbo performed allergy tests as they
should have been done for valid reasons and that her actions
were not fraudulent in nature on those occasions. The
evidence of proper care would be relevant towards the issues
of fraudulent intent which the Government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt. To limit the Defendant and her ability to
present such evidence denies her the ability to present a
proper defense to the specific fraudulent intentions the
Government contends exist.
(Doc. 86 at 2-3.) Dr. Ifediba argues, vaguely, that he might
offer evidence of undefined specific acts that “negates
the alleged elements of the alleged conspiracy, ” and
“relevant” evidence that “disprov[es] a
material element of the alleged charges, ” including
“character evidence.” (Doc. 87 at 1-2.) Neither
defendant has described or submitted the evidence of
“good care” that he or she intends to offer.
The general rule precluding introduction of character
evidence to show a person's predisposition to commit (or
not commit) a crime is clear. Fed.R.Evid. 404(a)(1) expressly
provides that “[e]vidence of a person's character
or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a
particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
character or trait.” As such, the government generally
cannot introduce evidence attempting to show that a defendant
was predisposed to commit a crime, see United States v.
Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009), nor can a
defendant present evidence of generally good conduct in an
attempt to negate the government's showing of criminal
intent, United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255,
1270-71 (11th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Rutgerson, 822 F.3d 1223, 1239
(11th Cir. 2016). Therefore, “generally, evidence of
good conduct is not admissible to negate criminal
intent.” United States v. Moreira, 605
Fed.Appx. 852, 859 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting United
States v. Camejo, 929 F.2d 610, 613 (11th Cir.1991))
(internal quotations omitted). “A defendant is not
permitted to portray himself as a good character through the
use of prior ‘good acts,' and evidence of
noncriminal conduct to negate the inference of criminal
conduct is generally irrelevant.” United States v.
Lepore, No. 1:15-CR-367-WSD-JKL, 2016 WL 4473125, *6
(N.D.Ga. Aug. 25, 2016) (quoting Camejo, 929 F.2d at
613 and United States v. Grimm, 568 F.2d 1136, 1138
(5th Cir. 1978); citing United States v. Scarpa, 897
F.2d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 1990) (“A defendant may not seek
to establish his innocence, however, through proof of the
absence of criminal acts on specific occasions.”));
see also Moreira, 605 Fed.Appx. at 859 (“The
Government did not charge and did not argue that there was no
legitimate business conducted at Anna Nursing. Thus, evidence
that some of the claims filed by Anna Nursing may have been
for services legitimately provided to eligible patients
without the payment of kickbacks was irrelevant.”);
United States v. Hung Thien Ly, 543 Fed.Appx. 944,
946 (11th Cir. 2013) (“The district court did not abuse
its discretion in precluding Ly from introducing evidence
that he discharged other patients who allegedly violated his
screening protocols. This evidence is not probative of his
intent with respect to the patients who received the drugs
covered by the indictment.”).
The
Government's Motion in Limine was therefore due to be
granted. Defendants shall not offer evidence of good care and
positive experiences of patients at CCMC other than those
instances specifically set forth in the Indictment.
Defendants may retain the right to make an offer of proof,
...