United States v. Girod
646 F.3d 304
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Girod, Brown, and Langley indicted on conspiracy and multiple health care fraud counts tied to ANBNO, a Medicaid EPSDT PCS provider.
- ANBNO claimed PCS services and submitted time sheets/POCs to Medicaid; evidence suggested false documentation and kickbacks.
- Superseding indictment (Feb 12, 2009) charged Girod with conspiracy and numerous fraud counts; Brown and Langley charged similarly.
- Jury convicted Brown on several counts, Langley on Counts 1 and 47-56, and Girod on Counts 1, 15-39, 60-62; sentences were imposed.
- Brown moved to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct; district court denied; Brown and Girod, Langley timely appealed.
- Issues on appeal include government contacts with defense witnesses, conduct with a cooperating witness, sufficiency of evidence, and sentencing enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government contact with defense witnesses violated rights | Brown asserts interference by agents affecting witness testimony. | Brown contends interviews coerced or intimidated witnesses to not testify. | No substantial interference; interviews did not impair free choice to testify. |
| Prosecution's contact with Lee biased defense | Prosecution urged Lee to meet and discuss cooperation, influencing testimony. | Brown claims improper influence and coercion of a cooperating witness. | District court decision to deny dismissal affirmed; no clear error found. |
| Sufficiency of Girod's evidence for fraud and conspiracy | Evidence shows Girod created/participated in false documents with third-party corroboration. | There was no direct proof Girod authored or signed documents; handwriting not proven. | Reasonable jury could find Girod knowingly participated; substantial evidence supported convictions. |
| Girod's specific intent and commerce involvement | Fraud allegations tied to a federally funded program affecting interstate commerce. | Argues education/limitations undermine intent; no clear link to commerce proven. | Evidence supported intent and commerce connection; plain-error review not met. |
| Harmlessness of Langley evidence of other acts under Rule 404(b) | Perrier testimony showed Langley’s drug/alcohol context relevant to intent. | Other-acts evidence not intrinsic; risk of prejudice; admissibility unclear. | Admission affirmed as harmless; did not substantially prejudice Langley. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dupre, 117 F.3d 810 (5th Cir.1997) (right to present witnesses; due process protection)
- United States v. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264 (5th Cir.2002) (witness intimidation; due process standard)
- United States v. Skilling, 554 F.3d 529 (5th Cir.2009) (harmless error; substantial interference standard)
- United States v. Soape, 169 F.3d 257 (5th Cir.1999) (witnesses' rights; equal opportunity to interview)
- United States v. Viera, 839 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir.1988) (witness intimidation not proven by mere contact)
- United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.1978) (Becehum framework for Rule 404(b) evidence)