United States v. Boros
668 F.3d 901
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Boros operated PMeds, an Internet pharmacy, with the Calows; PMeds sold prescription drugs, including controlled substances, without requiring prescriptions.
- The scheme involved foreign incorporation, offshore operations, and shipments of steroids and other controlled substances via PMeds.com.
- The government charged Boros with conspiracy to import, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, money laundering, and conspiracy to launder money.
- Dr. Barkin, a clinical pharmacologist, testified as an expert on drug classifications, medical supervision, and drug risks; Boros challenged relevance and potential prejudice.
- The district court allowed parts of Barkin’s testimony, instructed to limit inflammatory content, and the jury convicted Boros on all conspiracies; Boros received nine years’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held Barkin’s testimony had minimal Rule 401 relevance and portions should have been excluded under Rule 403, but the error was harmless and the convictions were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barkin’s testimony was relevant under Rule 401. | Government: background information aiding understanding of PMeds and drugs. | Boros: testimony lacked relevance to conspiracy/knowledge. | Yes, relevant as background; portions excluded under Rule 403. |
| Whether Barkin’s testimony violated Rule 403 by causing unfair prejudice. | Background value outweighed minimal prejudice. | Prejudice outweighed probative value. | Parts of testimony should have been excluded under Rule 403. |
| Whether the evidentiary error was harmless. | Evidentiary value plus corroborating evidence supports guilt. | Error could have affected the verdict. | Error was harmless; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (U.S. 2004) (low threshold for relevance; background evidence admissible)
- United States v. McKibbins, 656 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2011) (broad relevance of admissible evidence)
- United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999) (wide discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Wilson, 985 F.2d 348 (7th Cir. 1993) (animus toward evidentiary error standard guidance)
- United States v. Westbrook, 125 F.3d 996 (7th Cir. 1997) (background evidence admissibility considerations)
- United States v. Mansoori, 304 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2002) (useful background evidence; not unfairly prejudicial)
- United States v. Cooper, 591 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2010) (background evidence with limited probative value may be excluded)
- United States v. Tanner, 628 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2010) (balancing probative value and prejudice; Rule 403)
- Arrieta-Agressot v. United States, 3 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1993) (prosecutor’s remarks do not by themselves mandate reversal when evidence is overwhelming)