United States v. Coughlin
2011 WL 5301602
D.D.C.2011Background
- Defendant Charles Coughlin, a Navy officer at the Pentagon, faced retrials on a narrowed set of charges related to his 9/11 VCF claim.
- Coughlin claimed 9/11 injuries caused extensive noneconomic and economic damages, including impairment and time off work; the VCF awarded a $331,034 settlement after an initial $60,000 presumption.
- First trial ended with acquittals on three mail fraud counts and hung judgments on others, leading to a mistrial on several counts.
- On retrial, the court narrowed the indictment to a post-April 30, 2004 scheme concerning economic damages; Yeager overruled White, allowing retrial on remaining counts.
- D.C. Circuit remanded to dismiss some counts and allowed retrial on others, prompting pretrial rulings on admissibility of medical/athletic evidence and VCF valuation materials.
- The third trial, conducted August–August 2011, resulted in guilty verdicts on Counts Six and Seven for false claim and theft.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether medical and athletic evidence was admissible under Rule 401/403. | Coughlin argues the evidence was prejudicial and not probative. | Coughlin contends the evidence is extraneous and should have been excluded. | Admissible; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice. |
| Double Jeopardy impact of retrial after partial acquittals. | Government sought retrial per narrowed indictment; post-Yeager allowed retrial. | White control barred retrial on remaining counts; Yeager overruled White. | Retrial on narrowed counts permissible; previous rulings not controlling. |
| Whether VCF economic award process evidence was admissible under Rule 803(8)(C) or Rule 403. | Evidence bears on economic damages methodology. | Valuation tables are hearsay and confusing; should be admitted. | Excluded under Rule 403; not admitted. |
| Permissibility of Cantwell and Purple Heart testimony to challenge extent of injury. | Testimony supports challenge to extent of injury. | Evidence should be limited to extent, not existence, of injury. | Properly limited; not improper prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dowling, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (Double Jeopardy context for relitigating issues; admissibility analysis on related evidence)
- Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) (Overruled White; permits retrial under narrower theory)
- United States v. Bowie, 232 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Rule 404(b) intrinsic/extrinsic evidence distinction explained)
- United States v. White, 936 F.2d 1326 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Limiting double jeopardy analysis for hung counts (binding at time))
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (Rule 403/ Rule 404 interplay in evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992) (Clarifies evidentiary standards for related proof)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (Harms analysis for harmless error standard)
- United States v. Palmera Pineda, 592 F.3d 199 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (Harmlessness burden and evidentiary considerations)