United States v. Muoghalu
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23249
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Muoghalu was pharmacy director at Provena St. Joseph Medical Center and had influence over drug stock decisions.
- Levato, Aventis sales rep and local Aventis manager, sought to influence Muoghalu to retain Lovenox over Fragmin in exchange for favors.
- Muoghalu initially said he would switch to Fragmin but later met Levato privately and offered to make the issue go away in exchange for Rolex watches; he suggested earning money by giving speeches.
- Levato and supervisor approved paying Muoghalu $18,000 to not switch, and created fictitious records of nine speeches; Muoghalu was paid $18,000 and later $14,000 for seven additional fictitious speeches.
- In 2006, an FDA investigator confronted Muoghalu with Aventis records showing the fictitious speeches; Muoghalu acknowledged receiving $32,000 but claimed it was for informal talks without documentation.
- Muoghalu was tried and convicted on federal kickback-related charges; he appealed on Brady-materials withholding and trial-admission issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady material withholding claim | Muoghalu contends Brady materials were withheld. | Government allegedly possessed exculpatory HHS records but did not disclose. | Brady claim rejected; no withholding by the government. |
| Scope of cross-examination and testimony on FDA interview | Defense sought broader leeway to question and allow Muoghalu to testify about the interview. | Judge acted within discretion; questioning was irrelevant and no proper offer of proof. | Affirmed ruling; Rule 106 completeness doctrine applied; offer of proof forfeited and merits lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (withholding of exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (probative value balanced against prejudice in Brady analysis)
- United States v. Gray, 648 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2011) (assessing suppression of evidence and effect on defense)
- United States v. Bhutani, 175 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 1999) (considerations on suppression and impeachment evidence)
- United States v. Wood, 57 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 1995) (relevance of investigative materials in Brady context)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1991) (moral impact of evidence on sentencing and perception of effects)
- United States v. Alvarado-Tizoc, 656 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2011) (impeachment and credibility considerations in evidence)