United States v. Stephen Arny
831 F.3d 725
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Dr. Stephen Arny, a non–board-certified physician, worked at a cash-only pain clinic (PAAH) from Aug. 2010–Sept. 2011 and was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and unlawfully dispense controlled substances.
- At trial the government presented an expert (Dr. Harries) who said Arny prescribed near-toxic doses and several former patients who were addicts/dealers; one patient received immunity.
- Trial counsel called only three defense witnesses (including Arny) and did not interview or call Dr. Doina Saxman (Arny’s predecessor) or any of Arny’s other former patients, despite Arny’s requests.
- Trial counsel sent an email misrepresenting that Saxman had a deal or would be indicted and that her clinic had been searched; co-counsel knew of that statement and did not correct it.
- A jury convicted Arny after a three-day trial. Post-conviction and before sentencing Arny obtained new counsel and moved for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, alleging constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The district court granted a new trial, finding Strickland prejudice from counsel’s deficient performance (failure to investigate/interview Saxman and former patients and the misrepresentation). The government appealed; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Arny's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s conduct amounted to constitutionally deficient performance under Strickland | Counsel lied about Saxman’s status, failed to interview/call Saxman, and failed to investigate or call former patients — objectively unreasonable and not strategic | Counsel’s omissions were strategic or reasonable decisions; Saxman’s and other patients’ testimony would likely have been harmful or cumulative | Court: Counsel’s performance was deficient (misrepresentation + failures to investigate) and thus violated Sixth Amendment |
| Whether counsel’s deficient performance caused prejudice (reasonable probability of different outcome) | Testimony from Saxman (a practicing physician who drafted many plans) and six former patients would have created reasonable doubt about lack of legitimate medical purpose/usual course of practice | Government: Case was strong; jury already rejected Arny’s testimony; helpful witnesses would not have changed outcome and Saxman might have hurt Arny | Court: Combined deficiencies created a reasonable probability of a different verdict; prejudice established |
| Whether a district court may grant a Rule 33 new trial on lesser "ineffective-assistance light" grounds | Arny relied on Strickland standard and sought a new trial based on constitutional ineffectiveness | Government urged higher showing or deference; suggested failures were strategic or harmless | Court did not adopt an "ineffective-assistance light" rule but found Strickland standard satisfied; new trial warranted under Rule 33 |
| Timeliness of Rule 33 motion (late filing) / excusable neglect | Arny filed >14 days after verdict but was still represented by trial counsel during that window; sought leave to file late motion | Government did not contest district court’s finding of excusable neglect on appeal | Court accepted district court’s excusable neglect finding (no appeal) and reached merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel must conduct reasonable investigation; decisions after inadequate investigation are unreasonable)
- Towns v. Smith, 395 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 2005) (failure to interview a known, potentially important witness can constitute ineffective assistance)
- Munoz v. Smith, 605 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2010) (standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims raised in new-trial context)