943 F.3d 1011
6th Cir.2019Background
- Dr. Alan Godofsky worked ~10 months at a Georgetown, KY “pill mill” clinic, writing nearly 6,000 prescriptions (≈552,000 pills), mostly oxycodone, in short, cashiered visits with no exams or follow-up.
- DEA and state police investigated; Kentucky medical board found gross negligence and restricted his practice; federal indictment followed for distributing controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).
- At trial Godofsky requested a standalone "Good Faith" jury instruction that would permit acquittal based on his subjective belief that prescriptions benefited patients. The district court refused that instruction and instead gave an instruction tracking the § 841 elements and 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04.
- The jury convicted Godofsky on five counts; he was acquitted on a related conspiracy count.
- At sentencing the court denied acceptance-of-responsibility credit, applied a two-level enhancement for abuse of position of trust / special skill, attributed all clinic prescriptions to him for drug-quantity, imposed a downward variance to 60 months, and fined $500,000. Godofsky appealed instruction and several sentencing rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Godofsky's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by refusing the defendant’s requested "Good Faith" jury instruction | Jury should have been instructed that defendant’s subjective good-faith belief that prescriptions benefited patients requires acquittal | The law uses an objective standard; the pattern instruction and §1306.04 sufficiently captured the defense; subjective belief is irrelevant | No reversible error: the requested instruction, as Godofsky meant it (subjective good faith), misstated the law; the instruction given was sufficient |
| Whether subjective "good faith" (personal belief) is a standalone defense to §841(a) | Defendant says his personal belief that prescriptions helped patients negates criminality | Govt: law requires objective standard—compliance measured against professional practice, not personal belief | Subjective good faith is not a legal escape; only reasonable (objective) good-faith mistakes about professional practice can negate mens rea |
| Whether the §3B1.3 two-level enhancement for abuse of position of trust / special skill was improper | Godofsky: no trust was abused because alleged "victims" included undercover agents/informants | Gov’t: physician’s licensure is a "special skill" and applies under the Guideline commentary | Enhancement affirmed: physician’s license is a special skill and §3B1.3 properly applied |
| Whether denial of acceptance-of-responsibility credit was improper | Godofsky: going to trial and acquittal on conspiracy shouldn’t preclude credit; he preserved issues | Gov’t: he contested factual guilt and denied wrongdoing at and after trial | Denial affirmed: defendant did not fall into the rare exception for preserving non-guilt factual issues; court gave proper deference |
| Whether court erred in drug-quantity calculation by counting all clinic prescriptions (and related fine) | Godofsky: court should count only prescriptions tied to the five convictions; fine lacked explicit explanation | Gov’t: Guidelines require counting relevant conduct as part of same course of conduct; fine within statutory/guideline bounds | Court properly attributed all prescriptions as relevant conduct; fine ($500,000) was within statutory/guideline range and not plainly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Volkman, 797 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2015) (praised a multi-part “good faith” instruction as a model but did not adopt a subjective-good-faith exception)
- United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975) (upheld pill-mill conviction; held physicians’ dispensing is limited to professional practice; noted acquittal possible for honest effort to comply)
- United States v. Carroll, 518 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1975) (physicians exempt under statute when prescribing in regular course of professional practice; trial court must instruct jury accordingly)
- United States v. Voorhies, 663 F.2d 30 (6th Cir. 1981) (discussed an instruction framing good faith as honest exercise of reasonable professional judgment)
- United States v. DeBoer, 966 F.2d 1066 (6th Cir. 1992) (held that instructions tracking statute and regulation can effectively inform jury of the good-faith defense without using magic words)
- Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (1999) (jury instructions must be read in context of the entire charge)
- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) (cited regarding that knowingly distributing outside professional practice suffices for conviction)