United States v. Richard Evans
892 F.3d 692
5th Cir.2018Background
- Dr. Richard Evans ran a Houston pain-management clinic (2010–2012) that wrote >11,000 oxycodone prescriptions and took in over $2.4M; many patients came from Louisiana after that State tightened regulations.
- Building employees and clinic staff observed high-volume, repetitive patient traffic, mail-order requests (money orders), pre-signed prescriptions, and a flyer explaining mail-order refill procedures; federal agents raided the office in Sept. 2012.
- A grand jury charged Evans with conspiracy, six counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances, five counts of money laundering (18 U.S.C. §1957), and eight counts of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341); co-defendant Devido (pharmacist) pleaded guilty to a separate charge.
- At trial the Government presented patient files, testimony from clinic staff, the pharmacist, and a medical expert (Dr. Owen) who reviewed ~17–18 files and opined the prescribing was outside the course of professional practice; some patients testified and one appointment was videotaped.
- The jury convicted Evans on all counts; the district court sentenced him to 60 months incarceration (below Guidelines), supervised release, a $250,000 fine, and forfeiture; Evans appeals raising sufficiency, indictment particularity, evidentiary rulings, and a Confrontation Clause claim.
Issues
| Issue | Gov't Argument | Evans's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for three §841 distribution counts | Patient files + expert testimony + circumstantial proof supported that those prescriptions lacked legitimate medical purpose | Record lacked particularized proof for each challenged prescription; reliance on pattern insufficient (citing Tran Trong Cuong) | Affirmed — jury reasonably could find each prescription illegitimate; Tran Trong Cuong not controlling and evidence was particular enough |
| Sufficiency of evidence for five §1957 money‑laundering counts | Traced Schedule II patient proceeds into Evans’s Amegy account and to charged transactions; aggregation and commingling rules show >$10,000 of tainted funds supported counts | Expert assumed too many prescriptions were invalid; Government failed to show amount of clean vs. tainted funds so convictions are unsupported | Affirmed — aggregation + tracing made it reasonable to infer >5% of deposits were tainted, satisfying §1957 beyond plain‑error review |
| Sufficiency and particularity of indictment / mail‑fraud counts (§1341) | False claim was that prescriptions were issued pursuant to proper standard of care; representations material and intent to defraud shown by conduct and financial motive | Patients got the drugs they sought, so no materially false representation or intent to defraud their property interests | Affirmed — indictment met constitutional minimal standards; materiality and intent could be inferred and were supported by evidence |
| Evidentiary rulings & Confrontation Clause (opinion testimony, Helmke letter, limitation on cross‑examination of witness Clayton) | Smith/Epley lay opinions and Helmke letter were admissible or at least cumulative; limiting cross‑examination was harmless given corroborating evidence | Admission of pill‑mill opinions and Helmke letter were hearsay/speculation; exclusion of target‑letter impeachment violated Sixth Amendment | Affirmed — opinion testimony admissible on personal observation or harmless if not; Helmke letter (even if hearsay) harmless; assumed Confrontation error harmless under Van Arsdall factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tran Trong Cuong, 18 F.3d 1132 (4th Cir.) (pattern evidence alone may be insufficient to convict on individual prescription counts)
- United States v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000) (clean‑funds‑out‑first rule for commingled accounts)
- United States v. Fuchs, 467 F.3d 889 (5th Cir. 2006) (aggregation approach to multiple withdrawals in §1957 prosecutions)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (harmless‑error factors for Confrontation Clause restrictions)
- United States v. McDowell, 498 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2007) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Neder, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (materiality standard for false‑statement/misrepresentation offenses)
- United States v. Abrahem, 678 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2012) (materiality framed as whether a statement could influence a reasonable decisionmaker)