United States v. Chikenna Jones
733 F.3d 574
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Henry and Chikenna Jones were indicted in overlapping multi-defendant Medicare fraud schemes involving DME suppliers, patient recruiters, and kickbacks; Henry was prosecuted in three related indictments (Ngari, Jones, McKenzie) and Chikenna in two (Jones, McKenzie).
- Henry was convicted in the Ngari case (jury trial) before the McKenzie trial; he was later tried and convicted in McKenzie and challenged the McKenzie indictment as violating double jeopardy and as multiplicitous.
- The Ngari and McKenzie indictments each alleged conspiracies to commit health-care fraud and to pay health-care kickbacks, but implicated different central companies (Unique in Ngari; Solutions in McKenzie) and largely different principal organizers.
- The district court denied Henry’s pre- and post-trial motions to dismiss the McKenzie indictment on double jeopardy and multiplicity grounds; Henry appealed.
- Thirteen days before the McKenzie trial, Chikenna moved to substitute retained counsel for her CJA attorney; the district court denied the substitution after a hearing where it found substitution would require a multi-month continuance and that her complaints about appointed counsel were speculative.
- Chikenna appealed the denial of substitution; the Fifth Circuit affirmed both Henry’s and Chikenna’s appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution in McKenzie violated Double Jeopardy (Henry) | Henry: McKenzie charges duplicate the conspiracy conduct for which he was convicted in Ngari; same course of conduct | Govt: Ngari and McKenzie charged separate conspiracies (different timing for Henry’s involvement, different central organizers and scope) | Affirmed: No double jeopardy — five-factor conspiracy test shows separate conspiracies |
| Whether McKenzie indictment was multiplicitous (Henry) | Henry: Charging multiple conspiracy counts duplicates a single offense and risks multiple punishments | Govt: §1349 and §371 have different elements (overt act requirement and differing statutory targets), satisfying Blockburger/Albernaz | Affirmed: Not multiplicitous — distinct statutory elements support separate counts |
| Whether district court abused discretion denying substitution of retained counsel (Chikenna) | Chikenna: Right to counsel of choice; denial prevented her from having retained counsel (Spring) shortly before trial | Govt/District Ct: Right to choice is not absolute; substitution would prejudice fairness, government, witnesses, and court calendar requiring lengthy continuance | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion — court properly balanced counsel-of-choice against fairness and calendar considerations |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (defendant has right to counsel of choice but trial court may balance against fairness and calendar)
- El-Mezain v. United States, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011) (five-factor test for whether separate conspiracies exist for double jeopardy analysis)
- Delgado v. United States, 256 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2001) (discussing burden-shifting and conspiracy factors in double jeopardy claims)
- Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981) (Blockburger elements test applied to multiplicity challenges)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test whether two statutory offenses each require proof of an element the other does not)
- Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (2005) (§371 conspiracy contains an overt-act requirement)
- United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992) (overlap in proof between prosecutions does not itself establish double jeopardy)