Point well taken. I testified in a Medicare Fraud and Abuse case back in the 'nineties - for the defense. Besides being my first exposure to the FBI's lying under oath, the sentencing (the defendant lost) was informative, too.
This doctor had rocked the boat and offended the political machine in a large midwestern town, and the next thing…
Point well taken. I testified in a Medicare Fraud and Abuse case back in the 'nineties - for the defense. Besides being my first exposure to the FBI's lying under oath, the sentencing (the defendant lost) was informative, too.
This doctor had rocked the boat and offended the political machine in a large midwestern town, and the next thing he knew, FBI agents were in his office. He maintained his innocence throughout; my review of boxes and boxes of files indicated the same. A jury of inner-city women convicted him of one count, saying in later polling that they "didn't understand the testimony; it was too technical, but if the gub'ment charged him with thirty counts, he must be guilty of at least one." Of course, they were ignorant of the fact that even one felony causes a doctor to lose his license.
But at the sentencing, the judge enhanced the sentence because the defendant vehemently maintained his innocence, and therefore his "lack of remorse" was an aggravating factor. The Martha Stewart trial later took the same trajectory; her crime was lying to the FBI by saying that she was innocent when she wasn't. Another gub'ment travesty, IMHO.
Point well taken. I testified in a Medicare Fraud and Abuse case back in the 'nineties - for the defense. Besides being my first exposure to the FBI's lying under oath, the sentencing (the defendant lost) was informative, too.
This doctor had rocked the boat and offended the political machine in a large midwestern town, and the next thing he knew, FBI agents were in his office. He maintained his innocence throughout; my review of boxes and boxes of files indicated the same. A jury of inner-city women convicted him of one count, saying in later polling that they "didn't understand the testimony; it was too technical, but if the gub'ment charged him with thirty counts, he must be guilty of at least one." Of course, they were ignorant of the fact that even one felony causes a doctor to lose his license.
But at the sentencing, the judge enhanced the sentence because the defendant vehemently maintained his innocence, and therefore his "lack of remorse" was an aggravating factor. The Martha Stewart trial later took the same trajectory; her crime was lying to the FBI by saying that she was innocent when she wasn't. Another gub'ment travesty, IMHO.