United States v. Varian Scott
403 F. App'x 392
| 11th Cir. | 2010Background
- Scott was convicted on one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and 20 counts of health care fraud; appeals challenge Confrontation Clause and expert testimony, and argue sentencing disparity.
- Trial featured a cooperating codefendant, Collie, whose testimony and corroborating witnesses established the fraudulent prescription scheme.
- A CD of Georgia Medicaid claims data was admitted without cross-examining the CD’s preparer, raising Confrontation Clause concerns.
- A Daubert hearing addressed fingerprint expert LeCroy; the court admitted ACE-V-based testimony, subject to cross-examination.
- Sentencing produced a total 144-month term within the guideline range; Scott urged mitigating weight to avoid unwarranted disparities with co-defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause error from CD admission | Scott argues the CD is testimonial and uncross-examined precludes confrontation. | Scott contends the CD is a business record and admissible; harmless error if any. | Harmless error; admission did not affect the key contested facts. |
| Admission of fingerprint expert testimony under Daubert | LeCroy's methodology and lack of established error rate render it unreliable. | ACE-V is reliable, widely accepted, and properly subjected to cross-examination. | No abuse of discretion; fingerprint testimony properly admitted. |
| Reasonableness of sentence and consideration of § 3553(a) factors | Court should consider disparities with co-conspirators and possibly impose a lighter sentence. | Court may impose sentence within the range based on seriousness, history, and deterrence without unequal treatment to others. | Sentence of 144 months reasonable and within range. |
| Weight given to avoiding unwarranted disparities | Greater weight should be given to disparity concerns due to co-defendants’ sentences. | Disparities based on cooperation and participation; not unwarranted when not similarly situated. | No requirement to elevate disparity considerations; affirming substantial reasonable sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination unless unavailable)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability for expert testimony)
- Caraballo v. United States, 595 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2010) (harmless-confrontation error when non-key facts are corroborated)
- Abreu v. United States, 406 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2005) (fingerprint evidence admissibility under Daubert maintains reliability)
- Pena v. United States, 586 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2009) (ACE-V method admissibility in fingerprint analysis)
- Mitchell v. United States, 365 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2004) (fingerprint testimony admissibility under Daubert)
- Baines v. United States, 573 F.3d 979 (10th Cir. 2009) (fingerprint testimony admissibility)
- Crisp v. United States, 324 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2003) (fingerprint evidence admissibility; historically recognized)
- Havvard v. United States, 260 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2001) (latent fingerprint examination testimony admissible under Daubert)
- Frazier v. United States, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (Daubert framework for expert reliability)
- Gonzalez v. United States, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008) (weight and reasonableness of § 3553(a) factors)