United States v. Barbara Lang
15-5997
| 6th Cir. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Barbara Lang operated pain clinics (Superior, then Primary) in Tennessee; DEA investigated and alleged the clinics were "pill mills" dispensing illegitimate controlled-substance prescriptions.
- After a 26-day trial, a jury convicted Lang on 21 counts: conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, maintaining drug-involved premises, and structuring cash deposits; she was acquitted on some counts and one obstruction count was acquitted by the court post-rest.
- Evidence included surveillance, wiretapped calls with a known dealer (John Goss), undercover purchases, cooperating co-defendant testimony, patient and neighbor observations, and a government medical expert (Dr. Kloth) who reviewed paper medical files and opined many prescriptions lacked legitimate medical purpose.
- The government also introduced IRS-agent testimony about tax-reporting irregularities and evidence found in Lang's desk (news articles and a chronology document).
- Lang challenged numerous evidentiary rulings, a Fourth Amendment suppression ruling, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the sentence; the district court imposed a Guidelines-based effective life sentence (3,360 months / 280 years) with convictions running consecutively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Lang) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of IRS-agent testimony about financial misconduct | Testimony was relevant to motive, intent, and structuring charges and explained links between DEA/IRS investigations | Testimony was relevant only to a defective obstruction count and was unfairly prejudicial; should have been excluded | Admitted; relevant to multiple counts and any limited error as to obstruction-related remarks was harmless |
| Admission of medical-expert (Dr. Kloth) without Daubert hearing; failure to strike after EMRs surfaced | Expert reviewed patient paper files and gave opinions limited to those files; any factual gaps go to weight not admissibility | Court should have held Daubert hearing including electronic medical records (EMRs) and struck testimony when EMRs showed contrary facts | No abuse of discretion; Lang forfeited detailed Daubert objections and EMR complaint; expert admissible and issues were for cross-examination/jury |
| Exclusion of 14 defense medical witnesses and other evidentiary rulings (overdose, news articles, chronology) | Government: disclosures required under Rule 16; impeachment and awareness evidence admissible | Lang: exclusion violated right to present a defense; other evidence was unfairly prejudicial or hearsay | Exclusion proper as undisclosed lay-opinion witnesses were experts; overdose questioning admissible for impeachment; articles and chronology admissible (some as listener-awareness and co-conspirator statements) |
| Fourth Amendment suppression of undercover agent's exam-room observations | Entry by undercover patient was voluntary consent via clinic employee; informant vs. agent distinction favors government | Entry was effectively a search because employee was a government agent and consent was invalid | Denial of suppression affirmed; private-search doctrine inapplicable and consent (actual or apparent) by clinic employee was valid |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and maintaining drug-involved premises convictions | Presented ample circumstantial and direct evidence (dealer calls, undercover buys, staff testimony, patient condition, clinic practices) to show intent and purpose | Argues lack of knowledge, only a climate of wrongdoing, and insufficient link to illegal distribution | Evidence sufficient; jurors could infer Lang's knowledge, participation, and purpose for maintaining premises |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentence (3,360 months) | Guidelines calculations supported defendant's attributed drug quantity and leadership role; life-term recommendation at top offense level | Argues drug-quantity attribution and excessive length compared to similar cases; procedural miscalculation | Sentence affirmed; quantity and leadership findings not clearly erroneous and an effective life sentence within Guidelines range was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369 (6th Cir.) (evidence of financial irregularities admissible to show intent and rebut defenses)
- United States v. Demjanjuk, 367 F.3d 623 (6th Cir.) (plain-error standard for unpreserved evidentiary objections)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S.) (district court gatekeeping role on expert reliability)
- United States v. Hardin, 539 F.3d 404 (6th Cir.) (private-search/agent analysis and when a private actor is treated as government agent)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S.) (voluntary consent by an authorized third party can validate a search)