United States v. Jones
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24979
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Appellants opened Statewide Physical Medicine Group in Mississippi; Pearson as CEO, Jones as CFO/biller; treated Medicare patients with in-home services billed by area of body; direct supervision requirements under 42 C.F.R. §410.26 and §410.32; GAO reports offered but excluded; jury found Pearson guilty on health care false statements and both Appellants guilty of theft of government funds and money laundering; verdict form lowered mens rea for Counts 7-11, leading to reversal on those counts; appeals focused on dismissal of first indictment, evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, and sentencing issues.
- Statewide billed for in-home treatments using unlicensed personnel and relied on general supervision in home visits; physicians not present for treatment, repeatedly billing by body area rather than time; capitalizes on homebound/undercare exceptions to general supervision.
- District court dismissed the Jackson indictment and later reindicted in Hattiesburg; Rule 48(a) dismissal scrutinized for bad faith and due process implications; district court found no bad faith and proper process.
- Convictions: Jones/Pearson on theft of government funds and money laundering; Pearson on additional health care false statements counts (7-11) which are later reversed due to lowered mens rea on the verdict form.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirms counts 12 and 13, reverses Pearson’s Counts 7-11, and affirms other aspects of convictions and sentences.
- The case centers on whether the government proved improper billing by area and the sufficiency of evidence for the money laundering and theft convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Rule 48(a) dismissal | Bad faith dismissal alleged; geographic scope expanded | Dismissal legitimate under leave of court | No abuse of discretion; not clearly contrary to public interest |
| Procedural due process in dismissal | Dismissal without notice/hearing implicated due process | Process adequate; transfer decision permissible | Procedural due process satisfied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 12-13 | Proof of improper billing and money movement supports guilt | Claims based on interpretations of codes and lack of direct evidence | Sufficient evidence for theft of government funds and money laundering |
| Verdict form mens rea for Counts 7-11 | Verdict form required knowledge and willfulness; should not be diluted | Lowered standard could mislead jury | Reversible error; Pearson's Counts 7-11 vacated |
| Ex parte communications with jury | No prejudice shown; multiple notes addressed | Ex parte communications potentially prejudicial | Harmless error; not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Welborn, 849 F.2d 980 (5th Cir. 1988) (abuse of discretion in Rule 48(a) dismissal scrutiny)
- United States v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1982) (leave-of-court dismissal and prosecutorial discretion)
- United States v. Salinas, 701 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1983) (procedural due process analysis in dismissals)
- United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1975) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 48(a) rulings)
- Wis. v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (due process framework for deprivation of liberty interest)
- United States v. Comeaux, 954 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1992) (procedural due process considerations in re-indictment)
- United States v. McClure v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury instructions)
- United States v. Whiteside, 285 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002) (defining knowledge under scienter and reasonable interpretation)
- United States v. Mendoza-Medina, 346 F.3d 121 (5th Cir. 2003) (deliberate ignorance versus actual knowledge)
- United States v. Wofford, 560 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2009) (deliberate indifference instruction sufficiency)