United States v. Jason Votrobek
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2506
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellants Jason Votrobek and Roland Castellanos ran Atlanta Medical Group (AMG), a "pill mill" clinic in Cartersville, GA, modeled on Florida clinics operated by Zachary Rose; prescriptions were issued after cursory exams and cash payments, with measures to evade detection.
- DEA investigation began after a May 2010 traffic stop and complaints; agents used interviews, surveillance, toll records, confidential sources, and ultimately sought four wiretaps in 2011.
- Votrobek previously was tried in the Middle District of Florida on related pill-mill charges and acquitted there in April 2012; months later a Northern District of Georgia indictment charged him and Castellanos with a separate conspiracy and related substantive offenses arising from AMG.
- After a four-week trial the Georgia jury convicted Votrobek, Castellanos, and Dr. Chapman on conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to launder money, money laundering, and maintaining a place for unlawful drug distribution; each appellant received 180 months imprisonment, three years supervised release, fines, and forfeiture.
- On appeal Votrobek argued the Georgia conspiracy was barred by double jeopardy (and that any bar required dismissal of substantive counts for spillover); Castellanos argued the district court erred by denying a Franks hearing challenging wiretap affidavits and by refusing an entrapment-by-estoppel jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia conspiracy was barred by Double Jeopardy as the same conspiracy for which Votrobek was acquitted in Florida | Votrobek: prosecutions arose from the same scheme, so second prosecution violates Double Jeopardy | Government: Florida and Georgia conspiracies were distinct by time, personnel, overt acts, drugs involved, and location | Court: Affirmed — distinct conspiracies (no plain error in denying dismissal) |
| Whether acquittal in Florida required dismissal of substantive Georgia counts for prejudicial spillover | Votrobek: if conspiracy charges were barred, related substantive convictions are tainted | Government: conspiracies are separate, so no spillover issue | Court: Not reached on merits because Double Jeopardy claim failed; no prejudicial spillover shown |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying a Franks hearing challenging wiretap affidavits | Castellanos: affidavits contained false or reckless statements and lacked necessity; a Franks hearing was required | Government: affidavits supported by witness interviews, medical expert input, recorded calls, and detailed necessity showing; challenges were conclusory or supported by record | Court: No abuse of discretion — Castellanos failed to make the substantial preliminary showing required for Franks |
| Whether district court should have instructed jury on entrapment by estoppel | Castellanos: interactions with state agent and DEA contacts support instruction that reliance on official assurances could excuse liability | Government: record lacks evidence of affirmative, authoritative assurances by federal official; state agent could not bind federal law | Court: Denial affirmed — no factual basis or legal support for entrapment-by-estoppel instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (warrant-affidavit must be materially false and necessary to probable cause to trigger a Franks hearing)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (caution on using common actor to infer a single conspiracy)
- United States v. Marable, 578 F.2d 151 (Marable factors for determining separate conspiracies)
- United States v. Sturman, 679 F.2d 840 (separate locations and non-overlapping time support distinct conspiracies)
- United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (no overt-act element required for § 846 conspiracy)
- United States v. De La Cruz Suarez, 601 F.3d 1202 (wiretap necessity standard and scope)
- United States v. Westry, 524 F.3d 1198 (standards for refusing requested jury-defense instruction)
- United States v. Alvarado, 808 F.3d 474 (entrapment-by-estoppel requires reliance on federal official's misstatement)