FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 9- 12 12 9 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 20 11 2- CR-AS G UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ANDREA G. H OFFMAN, SEAN PAUL CRONIN, In te res te d- Part ie s- App el la nt s, ve rs us ALI SHAYGAN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a ON PETI TI ON FOR REHE ARING E N BANCBefo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, CARNES,

BARKETT, HUL L, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR, an d M ARTIN, Cir cu it Ju dg es . *
BY THE COURT: The co urt h av in g b een po ll edat t he reque stof o ne of t he m em be rs of t he Co urt an d am ajor it y

of the Cir cu itJu dg es who are i n re gu lar act iv e se rv ic e n ot ha vi ng vo te d i n fa vo r of

it(Ru le 35 , Fed eral Ru le s o f App el la te Pro cedur e), the Su gg es ti on of R eh eari ng En Ba nc an d t he Pet it io n fo r Reh eari ng are DENIE D.

/s / J OEL F. DU BINA CHIEF J UDGE

J udg e Ada lberto Jordan did not participate in the e n banc poll. * 2PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e, res pe ct in g t he de ni al of r eh eari ng enba nc :

I rel uc tant ly writ e th is op in io n re sp ect in g t he de ni al of r eh eari ng enba nc to
res po ndto th e d is se nt in g o pi ni on th atfol lo ws. Jud ge Henry Fri en dl y on ce ob se rv edth atth e p ract ic e o f publ is hi ng a di ss en t ab ou t a d eci si on inwhi chth e di ss en te r “ di d n otpa rti ci pa te ” an d “ th e Co urt h as de cl in edto rev ie w . . . enba nc ” is “ of dubi ou s p ol ic y .” Uni te d S ta te s v . New York , New Have n & Hart fo rdR.R. Co ., 27 6 F .2d52 5, 5 53 (2dCir . 19 60 ) (Fri en dl y , J., co nc urrin g i n d en ia l o f reh ’g
enba nc , join edby L um

bard , C.J.). An d J ud ge Raym on d R an do lp h, wh o c le rk ed fo r Ju dg e Fri en dl y , perhaps pu t i t b es t: “ [D]eni al s o f reh eari ng enba nc are b es t fo ll owe d b y

si le nc e. They sho ul d n otserve as t he oc cas io n fo r anex ch an ge of advi so ry op in io ns , ov ertur es to th e Supr em e Co urt, o r pr es s re le as es .” In de p. In s. Age nt s o f Am . v. Cl ark e, 96 5 F .2d10 77 , 10 80 (D.C. Cir . 19 92 ) (Ra nd ol ph , J.). Bu t, al as , “ di ss en ts fro m

de ni al of r eh eari ng enbanc are n ow ro ut in e.” In dr an eel Su r, How Fa r Do Vo ic es Carry : Di ss en ts fro m Deni al of R eh eari ng En Ba nc , 20 06 W is . L. Rev. 1 31 5, 1 31 7; see als o S ah y ers v. Pru gh , Hol li da y & Karat in os , P.L., 60 3 F .3d88 8, 8 89 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (Edm on ds on , J., co nc urrin g i n d en ia l o f reh ’g
enba nc ) (que st io ni ng “ th e fas hi on ” o f fi li ng “ di ss en ts reg ul arl y whenenba nc reh eari ng is de ni ed ”).

3The ori gi na l p an el op in io n s pe ak s fo r it se lf, b utI writ e, as th e au th orof t ha t

op in io n, t o s etth e rec or d s tra ig htab ou t a m at te r th atth e d is se ntm is un de rs ta nd s. The Hy de Am en dm en t al lo ws fo r th e ex tra or di na ry rem edy of i nv ad in g t he publ ic fis c to pay

anacqui tt edcri m in al de fen da nt ’s att orne y ’s fees , andth is rare waiv er of so ve rei gn imm

un it y ap pl ie s o nl y

when a co urt d et erm in es th atth e en ti re

“po si ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s was ve xa ti ou s, fr iv ol ou s, o r in ba d fa it h.” Pub . L. No. 1 05 -1 19 , § 6 17 , 11 1 S ta t. 2 44 0, 2 51 9 (1 99 7) (rep rin te d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 30 06 A, hi st or ic al an d s ta tu to ry

no te s) . The “po si ti on ” o f th e Uni te d S ta te s i s ex pr es se d a s a si ng ul ar t erm

forob vi ou s re as on s. Co ng res s ex pe ct eda co urt t o a ss es s t he
ov eral l p ro se cu ti on of ade fen da ntan d n otba se anawardof f ees on ly on d is cret e act io ns th atto okpl ace dur in g tha t p ro se cu ti on . Tradi ti on al san ct io ns ex is t fo r di sc ret e wro ng s l ik e d is co ve ry vi ol at io ns th atoc cu r du rin g a n o th erwi se reas on ab le pro se cu ti on , bu t an awardof a tt orne y ’s fees un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t i s n oton e o f th os e sa nc ti on s. Th e Hy de Am en dm en t i s co nc ern ed with wro ng fu l p ro se cu ti on s, n otwron gs th atoc cu r du rin g o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e pr os ecu ti on s. Th e d is tri ctco urt erredinwhen ithe ldot he rwis e, an d t he di ss en t fai ls to gra sp th is di st in ct io n. I. BACK GROUND

4The pa ne l o pi ni on pro vi de s a t ho ro ug h d is cu ss io n o f th e fac ts un de rlyin g

th is ap pe al , Uni te d S ta te s v . Shay ga n, 6 52 F.3d12 97 , 13 02 –1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) , bu t s om e o f th os e fac ts , whi ch are u nm en ti on edinth e d is se nt , m eri t s pe ci al
rev ie w. Mos t n ot ab ly, th e Uni te d S ta te s b eg anit s i nv es ti ga ti on an d p ro se cu ti on of Ali Sh ay ga n wi th m or e th ango odcau se : i t al l s ta rte d wi th a su sp ic io us de ath. On J un e 9 , 20 07 , Jam es Bren da n Do wne y di edfro m

anov erd os e o f va rio us drug s i nc lu di ng m etha do ne an d c oc ai ne . An au to ps y rev eal edth atth e le ve l o f
m etha do ne in Down ey ’s bl oo d was alo ne en ou gh to ki ll hi m . Two da y s b efo re Down ey di ed , Dr. Sha y ga n h adpre sc rib edm etha do ne to Down ey . Down ey ’s gi rlf

rie nd , Cry st al Bart en fel de r, te st ifi edth atsh e h advi si te d Sh ay ga n’s o ffi ce wi th Down ey on Ju ne 7, 2 00 7, an d t ha t Sh ay ga n h adno t
co nduc te d a ny kin d o f ph y si cal ex am in at io n o f Down ey . She tes ti fie d t ha t, dur in g th e sa m e v is it , Down ey

ask edSh ay ga n fo r m or e o xycod on e th anhe ha d pr ev io us ly been pre sc rib ed . She tes ti fie d t ha t Sh ay gan e xp res se d c on cernth atth e in crea se d a m ou ntof o xycod on e wou ldlo oksu sp ic io us , so Sh ay ga n s ug ge st ed
m etha do ne , whi ch Down ey acce pt ed . Bart en fel de r was with Do wne y th e n ig hthe di ed , andsh e te st ifi edth athe di edinhi s s le ep aft er t ak in g t he m etha do ne . Afte r Down ey ’s dea th , th e Dru g En fo rcem en t Ad m in is tra ti on co nduc te d a n un de rco ve r in ve st ig at io n o f Sh ay ga n. Two l oc al po li ce o ffi cers po se d a s 5pr os pe ct iv e p at ie nt s t o d et erm in e h ow ea si ly the y co ul d o bt ai n p res cri pt io ns of
co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es fro m Sh ay ga n. Th ey

reco rd edth ei r co nv ers at io ns an d ob ta in edpre sc rip ti on s fo r se ve ral co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es du rin g t he ir f irs t v is it s t o Sh ay ga n’s o ffi ce. The off ic ers pre se nt edno m ed ic al reco rd s an d wer e g iv en m in im al ph y si cal ex am in at io ns du rin g t he se vi si ts . On Fe brua ry

8, 2 00 8, the go ve rn m en t fi le d a n i nd ic tm en t tha t ch arg edin23
co un ts th atSh ay ga n h addi st rib ut edan d d is pe ns edco nt ro ll edsubs tanc es ou ts id e th e sc op e o f pr of

es si on al pra ct ic e an d n otfora le gi ti m at e m ed ic al pu rp os e in vi ol at io n o f fed eral law. See 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . Whe n t he in di ctm en t was fil ed , th e g ov ern m en t h adno t yet id en ti fie d any of Sh ay ga n’s o th er p at ie nt s. On Feb ru ary 11 , 20 08 , Adm in is tra ti on ag en ts arre st edSh ay ga n a ndob ta in edhi s co ns en t t o s earc h h is off

ic e. The a ge nt s s ei zedpa ti en t fi le s an d S hay ga n’s d ay pl an ne r. The ag en ts us edin fo rm at io n fr om th e d ay pl an ne r to id en ti fy

ad di ti on al pa ti en ts of S ha y ga n, an d e vi de nc e reg ard in g t he se pa ti en ts form edth e b as is for ad di ti on al co un ts co nt ai ne d i n asupe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t fi le d o n S ep te m be r 26 , 20 08
. Befo re tria l b eg an , Sean Cro ni n, o ne of t he two pro se cu to rs on th e cas e, su sp ect edth atSh ay ga n’s d efen se team m ig htbe tam

pe rin g wi th po te nt ia l witne ss es . He andhi s fe ll ow p ro se cu to r, Andrea Ho ffm an , sp ok e with t he ir 6supe rv is orat t he Uni te d S ta te s At to rn ey ’s Offic e, KarenGil be rt, wh o p erm it te d

Dru g En fo rcem en t Ag en t Ch ris to ph er Well s t o a sktwo po te nt ia l g ov ern m en t witne ss es to reco rdcal ls with t he de fen se tea m . Gilb ertin st ru ct edCro ni n t ha t s he
wou ldbe res po ns ib le forth e co ll at eral in ve st ig at io n a ndth atCro ni n a ndHoff m an sh ou ldtak e n o p artin th e in ve st ig at io n. Gi lb ertals o i ns tru ct edAgen t Well s n otto di sc lo se in fo rm at io n abo utth e co ll at eral in ve st ig at io n t o C ro ni n o r Hof fm an . Age ntW el ls sp ok e wit h t he two witne ss es , who ag reedto reco rdco nv ers at io ns with t he de fen se tea m . One o f th e wit ne ss es , Carl os Vent o, l at er s ig ne d a
co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t ag reem en t. Ag en ts fil edDEA-6 rep orts th atdo cu m en te d th atVent o a ndth e o th er wi tn es s, Tri ni ty Clen de ni ng , hadreco rd edco nv ers at io ns with t he de fen se tea m

an d tha t Ven to ha d s ig ne d aco nf id en ti al in fo rm an t ag reem en t. At a s ta tu s co nf

eren ce the weekbe fo re tria l, the di st ric t co urt o rd eredth e go ve rn m en t t o turn o ve r an y DEA-6 rep orts so th atth e co urt co ul d re adth em be fo re tria l t o d et erm in e if th ey co nt ai ne d a ny excu lp at ory m at eri al th atsh ou ldbe gi ve n t o t he de fen se un de r Bra dy v. Marylan d, 3 73 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1 19 4 (1 96 3)
. Two d ay s l at er, Cro ni n fi le d DEA-6 rep orts forsev eral witne ss es . Cro ni n h ad
as ke d Ag en t Well s fo r al l DEA-6 rep orts , bu t Cr on in di d n otasksp eci fic al ly for

7th os e g en erat edin th e co ll at eral in ve st ig at io n. Th e g ov ern m en t d idno t p ro du ce

th e DEA-6 re po rts rel at edto th e co ll at eral in ve st ig at io n. At tria l, the go ve rn m en t p res en te d aweal thof e vi de nc e to su gg es t tha t Sh ay ga n h addi st rib ut edan d d is pe ns edco nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es ou ts id e th e sc op e o f pr of es si on al pra ct ic e an d n otfora le gi ti m at e m ed ic al pu rp os e in vi ol at io n o f fed eral law. See Sh ay ga n, 6 52 F.3dat 1 30 5– 06 . Down ey ’s gi rlf rie ndtes ti fie d t ha t Sh ay ga n, wi th ou t co nduc ti ng an y ph y si cal ex am in at io n, p res cri be d Do wne y th e m etha do ne th atki ll edDown ey two da y s l at er. Id . at 1 30 5. Th ree o f Sh ay ga n’s fo rm er as so ci at es tes ti fie d t ha t Sh ay ga n ro ut in el y wrot e th em

pre sc rip ti on s fo r co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es witho utan y leg it im at e m ed ic al pu rp os e. Id . The two un de rco ve r po li ce o ffi cers tes ti fie d. Th e g ov ern m en t p lay edtap e rec or di ng s o f th ei r co nv ers at io ns with S ha y ga n fo r th e jury, andth e o ffi cers ex pl ai ne d h ow Sh ay ga n h adpro vi de d t he m pre sc rip ti on s fo r co ntro ll edsubs ta nc es . Id. Fo urof Sh ay ga n’s fo rm er p at ie nt s g av e te st im on y co ns is te ntwith t he pro se cu ti on ’s th eo ry . Id. at13 05 –0 6. Two o th er p at ie nt s g av e te st im on y th atdi d n otsupp ort the pr os ecu ti on ’s th eo ry , bu t the pa ti en ts ’ earl ie r st at em en ts an d e vi de nc e fro m th ei r m ed ic al fil es di d. Id . at 1 30 6. Dur in g t he cro ss -ex am in at io n o f Cl en de ni ng , Cle nd en in g m en ti on eda reco rd in g h e h adof aco nv ers at io n wi th on e o f Sh ay ga n’s at to rn ey s. Th e n ex t d ay , 8th e g ov ern m en t ex pl ai ne d t o t he co urt the reco rd in gs an d t he co ll at eral

in ve st ig at io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt al lo wedth e d efen se to cal l Ven to an d C le nd en in g ag ai n fo r cro ss -ex am in at io n. Th e co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t the de fen se di d
no th in g wro ng an d t ha t “ th e Uni te d S ta te s h adact edim pr op erl y inno t turni ng ov er the ne ces sa ry

di sc ov ery m at eri al s an d a ls o b y all owi ng reco rd in gs to oc cu r in th e fi rs t p la ce.” Id . at 1 30 7– 08
. Sh ay ga n was rep res en te d b y aneli te de fen se att orne y , andSh ay ga n’s s up erb
co un se l t oo k a dv an ta ge of t he op po rtu ni ty to fo cu s t he att en ti on of t he jury on th e al le ge d m is co nduc t b y

th e g ov ern m en t i n t he co ll at eral in ve st ig at io n. Du rin g t he
ne w cro ss -ex am in at io ns of Ve nt o a ndCle nd en in g, Sh ay ga n’s co un se l ac cu se d th em of n ottel li ng th e who le tru th to th e jury becaus e th ey ha d n otrev eal edth at th ey ha d b een ask edto reco rdco nv ers at io ns with t he de fen se tea m . In cl os in g arg um en t, Sh ay ga n’s co un se l co m pa redth e al le ge d m is co nduc t b y th e g ov ern m en t to th e Sal em

wit ch tri al s. Sh ay ga n’s co un se l re m in de d t he jury th atth e d is tri ct
co urt h adin st ru ct edth em th atth e “ Uni te d S ta te s [h ad ] act edim pr op erl y ,” an d arg ue d t ha t the juro rs ha d b een m is le d b y th e g ov ern m en t. Sh ay ga n’s co un se l arg ue d t ha t i nn oc en t wo m enha d b een co nv ic te d a ndhu ng inth e Sal em wit ch tri al s “ be cau se th ere wer e n o ju ro rs ,” an d h e u rg edth e jury to s ay “ no ” an d t o

9“ m ak e su re the Sal em , Mas sa ch us et ts [,] wit ch tri al s n ev er h ap pe n a ga in .” Id . at

13 08
. The jury returne d ave rd ic t o f no t g ui lt y on all co un ts . Im

m ed ia te ly after t he jury w as di sm is se d, the di st ric t co urt o rd eredth e g ov ern m en t t o app ear o n t he fo ll owi ng Mo nd ay . The co urt s ta te d t ha t i t wo ul d “ he ar al te rn at iv e reque st s fo r sa nc ti on s,” i nc lu di ng whet he r a s an ct io n i n t he form of a tt orne y ’s fees an d c os ts sh ou ldbe award edun de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t. Id . The co urt atno ti m e st at ed th atitwas c on si de rin g s an ct io ns ag ai ns t the in di vi du al pro se cu to rs . The di stric t co urt g ran te d S ha y gan’s m ot io n u nd er the Hy de Am en dm en t
an d o rd eredth e Uni te d S ta te s t o re im bu rs e Sh ay ga n i n t he am ou ntof $ 60 1,7 95 .88 fo r at to rn ey ’s fees an d c os ts fro m th e d at e o f th e supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t. The
co urt h el d t ha t the supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t, tho ug h s up po rte d b y ne wly di sc ov ered
ev id en ce, was fil edinba d fa it h b ecau se itcam e aft er a h eat eddi sc us si onbe twee n Cro ni n a ndSh ay ga n’s co un se l. The co urt al so hi gh li gh te d t he di sc ov ery vi ol at io ns rel at edto th e co ll at eral in ve st ig at io n a ndhe ldth at“ di sc ov ery vi ol at io ns in th e co ur se of apro se cu ti on canform a ba si s fo r th e awardof a tt orne y ’s fees
un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t.” Id . at 1 31 0. Th e d is tri ctco urt v irtua ll y ig no redth e subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce tha t s up po rte d t he ch arg es ag ai ns t Sh ay gan.

10W it ho utpro vi di ng no ti ce t o t he pro se cu to rs th atth ey were fa ci ng in di vi du al
sa nc ti on s an d wi th ou t ev enhe ari ng fro m Hoff m an , th e d is tri ctco urt al so en te reda publ ic rep rimand“ ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s At to rn ey ’s Offic e an d s pe ci fic al ly ag ai ns t AUSA Kare n Gi lb ert , Sean Cro ni n, an d An dr ea Ho ffm an .” Id . The di st ric t co urt o rd eredth e Uni te d S ta te s At to rn ey ’s Offic e to pro vi de “ th e co nt act in fo rm at io n fo r th e rel ev an t d is ci pl in ary bo dy of th e Bar (s ) of whi ch AUSA Cro ni n a ndHoff

m anare m em

be rs ,” an d s ta te d t ha t i t wo ul d re qu es t tha t di sc ip li na ry

act io n b e ta ke n a ga in stCro ni n andHoff m an . Id. The pro se cu to rs were n ev er g iv enanop po rtu ni ty to co nt es t the all eg at io ns th e co urt m ad e ag ai ns t th em . Altho ug h t he di ss en t m en ti on s t he “ vi ta l an d l au da to ry rol e,” Dis se nt in g Op
. at21 , of p ro se cu to rs an d o pi ne s t ha t the di st ric t ju dg e “pe rfo rm edhi s as si gn ed
ro le with g reatcare ,” id . at 2 3, the di ss en t n eg le ct s t o m en ti onth e g rie vo us wron g th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d a ga in stth e tr ia l p ro se cu to rs , Sean Cro ni n a nd And rea Ho ffm an , inth is cas e. By ig no rin g t hi s m at te r, th e d is se ntun de rs tand ab ly refr ai ns fro m

de fen di ng th e in qu iry by th e d is tri ctco urt tha t l edto th e p ub li c rep rimandof t he se pro se cu to rs witho utaffo rd in g t he m th e two rud im en ts of t he fu nd am en ta l ci vi l ri gh t o f du e p ro ces s: no ti ce an d a n o pp ortu ni ty to b e h eard
. Abo utth aterro r, th e p an el op in io n was un an im ou s. See Sh ay ga n, 6 52 F.3dat 1113 18 –1 9, 1 32 6. We vac at edth e sa nc ti on s b y th e d is tri ctco urt an d re fu se d t o affi rm any fin di ng th atth e tr ia l p ro se cu to rs ha d e ng ag edinan y m is co nduc t. Id
. The di ss en t d oe s n otco nt es t o urrul in g, b utin st eadig no res italt og ethe r. The di ss en t s ta te s t ha t “ th is Co urt’s o pi ni on inSh ay ga n d oe s n otsetasi de th e fin di ng s o f fac t tha t u nd erg ird edJu dg e Gol d’s Hy de Am en dm en t an al y si s. In de ed , th e o pi ni on ass um es th atth e p ro se cu to rs di d a ndsai d e ve ryth in g t ha t Ju dg e Gol d fo un d t o b e true . Neithe r do es itpo in t t o e rro r inJu dg e Gol d’s fin di ng s o f fac t tha t the pro se cu to rs act edinvi ol at io n o f th ei r ethi cal ob li ga ti on s as rep res en ta ti ve s o f ou r go ve rn m en t.” Di ss en ti ng Op. at33 . The p an el op in io n di d n otne edto de ci de whethe r th e fi nd in gs of a ll eg edm is co nduc t as th ey rel at ed to th e awardof f

ees un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t wer e cl earl y erro ne ou s, as th e go ve rn m en t ar gu ed , bec au se th e al le ge d m is co nduc t, ev enif t ru e, co ul d n ot
co ns ti tu te “ th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” B utth e fi nd in gs of m is co nduc t, as th ey were u se d t o s up po rt t he rep rimand s o f th e p ro se cu to rs , were v acat edby the
un an im ou s p an el as “ un rel iabl e b ecau se [th ey ] w[ere ] de ve lo pe d, af te r al l, wi th ou t affo rd in g e it he r [p ro se cu to r] due pro ces s.” Sh ay ga n, 6 52 F.3dat 1 31 9. Th e p an el refu se d a s fo ll ows to en do rs e an y fin di ng s o f m is co nduc t: “ It i s n otap pa ren t t o u s th ateit he r at to rn ey

ne ces saril y

vi ol at edan y

eth ic al rul e o r an y

co ns ti tu ti on al or st atut ory st an da rd .” Id . Thes e p ub li c se rv an ts de se rv e b et te r. 12II . DISCUSSI ON

Whe n i t awa rd edSh ay ga n fe es un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t, the di st ric t
co urt erredin two way s. Fi rs t, as th e p an el op in io n e xp la in s m or e th or ou gh ly, th e supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t was no t b ro ug htin“ba d fa it h” be cau se th ere was an ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e b as is forbri ng in g i t. See Sh ay ga n, 6 52 F.3dat 1 31 2– 15
. Tha t i s, the go ve rn m en t u nc ov eredne w evi de nc e o f ad di ti on al un la wfu l ac ti vi ty whe n a ge nt s d is co ve redSh ay ga n’s d ay pl an ne r. The d ay

pl anne r le d the ag en ts to
ne w pat ie nt s an d wi tn es se s, an d b as edon in fo rm at io n fr om th es e p at ie nt s, the go ve rn m en t fi le d the supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t. Sh ay ga n n ev er d en ie d t ha t the
supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t was supp orte d b y ne w andsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce. The pr os ecu to rs were d oi ng th ei r job , andwhen “ [w]henpubl ic off ic ia ls do th ei r job s, itis a go odth in g.” Foy v. Hol st on , 94 F.3d15 28 , 15 34 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Seco nd , th e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen ithe ldth atdi sc ov ery vi ol at io ns alo ne cansupp ort an awardof a tt orne y ’s fees un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t. The term “po si ti on of the Uni te d S ta te s” refe rs bro ad ly to the ov eral l l it ig at in g p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, no t t o i so la te d i ns ta nc es of m is co nduc t i n a n o th erwi se jus ti fiabl e p ro se cu ti on . Bec au se th e p ro se cu ti on of S ha y ga n was ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e, th e d is tri ctco urt di d n otha ve di sc ret io n t o a wardatt orne y ’s fees un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t.

13The pa ne l o pi ni on he ldth atth e Hy de Am en dm en t i s re se rv edfora sp eci fic

ki ndof wro ng . The Am en dm en t ap pl ie s wh enth e g ov ern m en t b rin gs a pr os ecu ti on th atis ob

jecti ve ly wro ng , no t wh enth e p ro se cu to r co m m it s wro ng s du rin g areas on ab le pro se cu ti on . Alth ou ghth e d is se ntex pr es se s fe ar tha t the pa ne l o pi ni on wil l l eav e co urts witho utth e p owe r to ch eckpro se cu to ria l
m is co nduc t, ch eck s o n p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t ex is te d l on g b efo re the Hy de Am en dm en t an d re m ai n i n fo rce. Fo r ex am pl e, as a sa nc ti on of p ro se cu to rs for di sc ov ery vi ol at io ns , a di stric t co urt ca n p ro hi bi t the go ve rn m en t fr om in tro du ci ng th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce o r “ en te r an y ot he r or de r th atis jus t u nd er the ci rcu m st an ces .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 16 (d )(2 )(C) –( D). A cou rt a ls o c anpubl ic al ly rep rimandpro se cu to rs for m is co nduc t, tho ug h i t m us t af fo rdth em du e p ro ces s, whi chth e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto do he re. Bu t a c ou rt c angra ntth e ex tra or di na ry rem edy of a n a wardof a tt orne y ’s fees on ly whe n i t es tabl is he s t ha t a wro ng fu l pr os ecu ti on ha s o ccu rred . No co m pa rab le rem edy

ex is te d b efo re the en actm en t o f th e Hy de Am en dm en t. The di ss en t s ug ge st s t ha t “ Co ng res s s ou gh t t o re sp on d t o pa tt ern s o f pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t” when itus edth e p hr as e “ th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s,” Di ss en ti ng Op. at34 , as i f Co ng res s i nt en de d t he Hy de Am en dm en t t o s up pl an t ex ta ntrem ed ie s fo r pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t. Bu t tha t in te rp ret at io n m ak es no sen se . 14Ourin te rp ret at io n o f th e Hy de Am en dm en t i s co ns is te ntwith t he de ci si on

of th e Si xt h C irc ui t i n Un it edSta te s v . Heav rin , 33 0 F .3d72 3 (6 th Cir . 20 03 ). In th atcas e, th e d is tri ctco urt h adaward eda de fen da ntatt orne y ’s fees an d c os ts
un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t o n t he gro un d t ha t s om e o f th e ch arg es ag ai ns t h im were fr iv ol ou s, b utth e Si xt h C irc ui t re ve rs ed . The Si xt h C irc ui t ru le d t ha t the di st ric t co urt h aderre d wh enitaward edatt orne y ’s fees an d c os ts witho ut

“ as se ss [in g] th e cas e as anin cl us iv e who le .” Id . at 7 31 . The Si xt h C irc ui t
reas on edth at“ [a] cou nt -b y -co un t an al y si s” was i nc on si st en t wi thth e Hy de Am en dm en t b ecau se it s p la in lan gu ag e refe rs to th e “po si ti on ” o f th e Uni te d S ta te s in th e si ng ul ar. Id . at 7 30 . It co nc lu de d t ha t, “ [w]henass es si ng whet he r th e po si ti onof t he Uni te d S ta te s was ve xa ti ou s, fr iv ol ou s, o r in ba d fa it h, the di st ric t
co urt s ho ul d . . . m ak e o nl y on e fi nd in g, wh ic h s ho ul d b e b as edon th e cas e as an in cl us iv e who le .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. The di ss en t m is in te rp ret s t he pa ne l o pi ni on an d s ta te s t ha t i t “ co ll ap se s t he Hy de Am en dm en t i nqui ry in to on ly a sin gl e que st io n: were the ch arg es ag ai ns t the de fen da ntba se le ss ? ” Dis se nt in g Op . at 3 3. Bu t the pa ne l o pi ni on ho ld s t ha t the ap pr op ria te in qu iry un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t i s as fol lo ws: was i t re as on ab le to pr os ecu te th is cas e? Pla in ly the se are d iff eren t que st io ns .

15It i s n otdi ffi cu ltto im ag in e a p ro se cu ti on th atbe gi ns with o bjec ti ve ly

reas on ab le ch arg es an d l at er b eco m es un reas on ab le to pro se cu te . For e xa m pl e, th e go ve rn m en t co ul d b rin g acas e th atwas o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e atth e o ut se t an d la te r di sc ov er ev id en ce tha t p ro ve d t ha t a d efen da ntwas n otgu il ty. If th e go ve rn m en t co nt in ue d t o p ro se cu te th e cas e, th e li ti ga ti ng po si ti on of t he Uni te d St at es wou ldbe inba d fa ith. No th in g i n t he pa ne l o pi ni on co nt rad ic ts th is in te rp ret at io n. The di ss en t s ta te s t ha t the Hy de Am en dm en t re qu ire s a c ou rt t o c on si de r “ a cas e as anin cl us iv e who le ,” Dis se nt in g Op . at 3 5, an d “ no t fa il to see th e fo res t fo r th e tr ees ,” id . at 3 6, b utth e d is se ntth enres ts it s ca se on all eg eddi sc ov ery vi ol at io ns rel at edto two witne ss es ’ ro le s i n aco ll at eral in ve st ig at io n. Th e d is se nt fai ls to ex pl ai n h ow t he se all eg edwron gs rep res en t the en ti re “po si ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” Th e d is se ntig no res th e weal th of e vi de nc e th atsupp orte d b ot h t he in it ia l an d s up ers ed in g i nd ic tm en ts of S ha y ga n, i nc lu di ng do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce an d t es ti m on y

fro m form er em

pl oyees, fo rm er p at ie nt s, an d two u nd erco ve r po li ce of fic ers . The d is se ntcau ti on s ag ai ns t t ak in g ana rro w vi ew of th e cas e, bu t the n m ak es th atve ry

m is ta ke
. The di ss en t’s ar gu m en t i s b as edhe av il y on a sn ip pe t o f le gi sl at iv e h is to ry of th e Hy de Am en dm en t, b utth atsn ip pe t p ro vi de s a p erfe ctex am pl e o f why, “whe n 16we co ns ul t l eg is la ti ve hi st ory , we [m us t] do so with due reg ardforit s wel l-kno wn li m it at io ns an d d an ge rs .” Garci a v . Vang ua rdCar Re nt al USA, Inc ., 54 0 F .3d 12 42 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The d is se ntno te s t ha t, wh enRep res en ta ti ve Henry Hy de in tro du cedth e fi rs t v ers io n o f th e Hy de Am en dm en t, h e sp ok e o f in st an ces whe n p ro se cu to rs “ ke ep in fo rm at io n fr om [th e d efen dant ] th atth e la w says th ey m us t d is cl os e,” “ hi de in fo rm at io n,” an d “ subo rnpe rjury.” Diss en ti ng Op. at34 (quo ti ng 14 3 C on g. Re c. H77 86 -0 4, atH77 91 (da il y ed . Sep t. 2 4, 1 99 7) (st at em en t of Rep . Hy de )). The di ss en t re as on s t ha t “ itsee m s C on gr es s cl earl y un de rs to od th atth e p res en ce o f pr ob ab le cau se do es no t, an d s ho ul d n ot , exc us e p at te rn s o f gr os s p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t.” Di ss en ti ng Op. at34 –3 5. The di ss en t’s ar gu m en t ab ou t thi s l eg is la ti ve hi st ory is un av ai li ng forat le as t two re as on s. Fi rs t, Co ng res sm anHy de ’s st at em en ts were m ad e in supp ort o f th e fi rs t v ers io n o f th e Am en dm en t, wh ic h was pa tt ern edaft er the Equ al Acces s t o Ju st ic e Act . See 1 43 Co ng . Rec. H7 78 6- 04 , H77 91 (Sep t. 2 4, 1 99 7) (st at em en t o f Rep . Hy de ). In t ha t earli er v ers io n, an y acqui tt edde fen da ntwou ldha ve be enab le to rece iv e at to rn ey ’s fees un le ss th e g ov ern m en t co ul d e st ab li shth atit s p os it io n was “ subs ta nt ia ll y

jus ti fie d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gil be rt, 1 98 F.3d12 93 , 13 00 (11 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (quo ti ng 14 3 C on g. Re c. H77 86 -0 4, H7 79 1 (S ep t. 2 4, 1 99 7) (st at em en t of Rep . Hy de )). “ [I]n res po ns e to co nc ernth atth e in it ia l v ers io n o f th e Hy de 17Am en dm en t s wep t t oo bro ad ly, th e sc op e o f th e p ro vi si on was c urta il ed

si gn ifi can tl y ” b y

rep la ci ng th e o ldst an da rdwith t he cu rren t s ta nd ard . Id. at13 02
. Thu s, Co ng res sm anHy de ’s st at em en ts were m ad e in supp ort o f a m or e le ni en t st an da rdth atCo ng res s re jecte d. Hi s s ta te m en ts tel l u s l it tl e ab ou t the “ daun ti ng ob st acl e” tha t Co ng res s u lt im at el y ad op te d. Id . Seco nd , eve n i f Co ng res sm an Hy de ’s st at em en ts were re le va nt , when tak enas awho le , th ey supp ort the vi ew th atth e Am en dm en t ap pl ie s o nl y to wron gf

ul pro se cu ti on s, n otis ol at edwron gs du rin g re as on ab le pro se cu ti on s. Co ng res sm anHy de warn edag ai ns t the ci rcu m st an ces wher e th e g ov ern m en t “ ch arg es y ouwith acri m in al vi ol at io n, ev en ge ts anin di ctm en t an d p ro ceed s, b utth ey are wro ng . They are n otjus t wro ng , th ey are wi ll fu ll y

wron g, the y

are fr iv ol ou sl y

wron g.” 14 3 C on g. Re c. H77 86 -0 4, H77 91 (Sep t. 2 4, 1 99 7) (st at em en t o f Rep . Hy de ). The g ov ern m en t m ig hten ga ge in va rio us types of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t, “ [b ]ut the y lo se th e li ti ga ti on , th e cri m in al su it , andth ey

can no t p ro ve subs ta nt ia l ju st ifi cat io n. In th atcir cu m st an ce . . . y oush ou ldbe en ti tl edto y ou r at to rn ey ’s fees rei m bu rs edan d t he co st s o f li ti ga ti on . . . . That , m

y fri en ds , is jus ti ce.” Id . (em ph as is ad de d) . Con gr es sm an Hy de ’s st at em en ts refe rredto in st an ces wher e anen ti re p ro se cu ti on is wron g, n ot in st an ces wher e a p ro se cu to r co m m it s o nl y a di sc ov ery vi ol at io n o r on ly dis li ke s a de fen da nt . 18The di ss en t al so arg ue s t ha t “ th e Fi rs t Ci rcu itha s re co gn iz edth at , un de r th e

Hy de Am en dm en t, an awardm ay pro pe rly be b as edon ‘ anarra y of g ov ern m en t
co nduc t b ot h b efo re the in di ctm en t an d dur in g l it ig at io n,’” Dis se nt in g Op . at 3 6 (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Kno tt , 25 6 F .3d20 , 31 (1s t Ci r. 20 01 )), b utth e d is se nt ’s
as se rti on is m is le ad in g t o the ex te ntth atitsu gg es ts th atKno ttall ows anaward
un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t wh en ev er a d efen da nt ’s rig htto di sc ov ery is vi ol at ed
. Inth e sa m e p arag rap h quo te d b y th e d is se nt , th e Fi rs t Ci rcu itst at edth atitwou ld

“ co ns id er the co nduc t o f th e in ve st ig at io n i n o rd er t o p ro vi de a co nt ex t i n wh ic h t o as se ss whet he r a p ro se cu ti on was ‘vex at io us .’ ” Kno tt , 25 6 F .3dat 3 1 (e m ph as is ad de d) . Agai n, the pro pe r in qu iry enco m pa ss es th e who le pro se cu ti on—the for es t,
no t the tre es . The Fi rs t Ci rcu itco nc lu de d i n Kn ot t tha t b ecau se “ [t]he go ve rn m en t ha d a m pl e rea so n t o i nv es ti ga te an d p ur su e ch arg es ag ai ns t the de fen da nt s . . . an awardof a tt orne y s’ fees un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t [wa ]s cle arl y no t warran te d.” Id . at 3 4. If, as th e d is se ntarg ue s, the Hy de Am en dm en t was m ean t “ to res po ndto pa tt ern s o f pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t,” Di ss en ti ng Op. at34 , th enCo ng res s’s requi rem en t tha t a d efen da ntbe acqui tt edbe fo re an awardm ay be ev enco ns id ered
wou ldbe un ne ces sa ry . If th e al le ge d d is co ve ry vi ol at io ns inSh ay ga n’s pr os ecu ti on were the ki nd s o f wro ng s C on gr es s s ou gh t t o a dd res s wi th th e Hy de 19Am en dm en t, the n S ha y ga n s ho ul d b e en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees whet he r th e jury

fo un d h im

gu il ty or no t. Anawardof f ees , aft er al l, wo ul d b e a p owe rfu l ch eckon pr os ecu to ria l p owe r. Bu t Co ng res s d idno t o pe n t he fed eral tre as ury to co nv ic te d fel on s. The ex tra or di na ry

rem edy pro vi de d b y

th e Hy de Am en dm en t ap pl ie s o nl y whe n apro se cu ti on , ass es se d a s an in cl us iv e who le , is wron g. Th e p ro se cu ti on of Sh ay ga n, trig ge redby the de ath o f hi s p at ie ntan d s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l
ev id en ce, was no t wro ng . The Hy de Am en dm en t d oe s n oten ti tl e Sh ay ga n t o a n awardof f

ees of $ 60 1,7 95 .88
.

20MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e, di ss en ti ng fro m th e d en ia l o f reh eari ng enba nc , inwhi ch BARKETT, Circ ui t Jud ge , join s: Pro se cu to rs pe rfo rm

a vi ta l an d l au da to ry

rol e fo r ou r so ci ety . To he lp th em carry ou t thi s ro le , we gi ve th em en orm ou s p owe r. Thi s, ev ento su ch anex te nt th atth ey have au th or it y

to de ci de whethe r ou r go ve rn m en t wi ll see k t o t ak e th e li fe o f a g iv encri m in al de fen dant . Our fed eral pro se cu to rs are t au gh t— an d o fte n rem in de d—th atth e “ in te res t” of t he Uni te d S ta te s “ in a cri m in al pro se cu ti on is no t th atitsh al l wi n acas e, bu t tha t ju st ic e sh al l b e d on e.” Stric kl er v . Green e, 52 7 U.S. 26 3, 2 81 , 11 9 S . Ct. 1 93 6, 1 94 8 (1 99 9) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . My ob se rv at io n i s t ha t p ro se cu to rs alm os t al way s d o the ir jo b s o a s t o b rin g h on orto th e rem ark ab le cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em th atis ou rs . At th e sa m e ti m e, ou r syste m of go ve rn m en t i s o ne of c he ck s an d b al an ces , andno publ ic off ic ia l was in te nd ed to ha ve po wer witho uten d. In19 97 , Con gr es s en act edjus t s uc h ach eckon pro se cu to rs ina st atut e co m m on ly referre d t o a s t he Hy de Am en dm en t. The leg is la ti on was wi de ly
un de rs to odto be Co ng res s’s re sp on se to th e p ro se cu ti on of f orm er Co ng res sm an

21Jo se ph McDad e, who ha d s erv edsev en te enterm s i n C on gr es s. Aft er a l en gt hy

fed eral in ve st ig at io n a ndtri al , a jury acqui tt edMr. Mc Dad e. Duri ng th e de ve lo pm en t o f th atleg is la ti on , Con gr es sm anHenry Hy de , th enCh ai rm anof t he Hou se Ju di ci ary Co m

m it te e, refe rredto “ so m eo ne we all kn ow wh o wen t thr ou gh he ll , if I m ay

us e th e te rm , for

m an y y ears of b ei ng accu se d a ndfin al ly prev ai le d a t
en orm ou s ex pe ns e, on e h e wil l n ev er g etou t fr om un de r.” 1 43 Co ng . Rec. H77 86 -0 4, atH77 91 (da il y ed . Sep t. 2 4, 1 99 7) (st at em en t o f Rep . Henry Hy de , Ch ai rm an , H. Comm . onJu di ci ary). Inth atsame dis cu ss io n, Co ng res sm anHy de de sc rib edth e co nc ern s m ot iv at in g t he law wh ic h b ears hi s n am e: Wha t if Unc le Sam su es y ou , ch arg es y ou with a cri m in al vi ol at io n, ev en ge ts an in di ctm en t an d pr oc eed s, bu t th ey are wro ng . The y are no t j us t wro ng , th ey are wil lfu ll y wro ng , th ey are fri vo lo us ly wro ng . The y ke ep in f o rm at io n fro m y ou th at th e la w sa y s th ey m us t di sc lo se . The y hi de in fo rm at ion
. The y do no t di sc lo se ex cu lp at ory in fo rm at io n to whi ch y ou are e nt it le d. Th ey

subo rnpe rjury. Id . As itwas u lt im at el y

pa ss ed , th e Hy de Am en dm en t p erm it s fe de ral co urts to awardreas on ab le att orne y s fe es to cri m in al de fen da nt s wh o a re ac qu it te d i f “ th e po si ti onof t he Uni te d S ta te s was ve xa ti ou s, fr iv ol ou s, o r in ba d fa it h.” Pub . L. No. 1 05 -1 19 , § 6 17 , 11 1 S ta t. 2 44 0, 2 51 9 (1 99 7) (rep rin te d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 30 06 A, hi st or ic al an d s ta tu to ry

no te s) . Thu s, we i n t he jud ic ia l b ran ch were g iv enou r own

22ro le to pl ay

in th is syste m

of c he ck s an d b al an ces to pro te ctag ai ns t p ro se cu to ria l
m is co nduc t. The tri al jud ge in th is cas e p erfo rm edhi s as si gn edrol e wit h g reatcare . U.S. Dis tri ctJu dg e Ala n S . Gol d’s co m pr eh en si ve fif

ty-pag e Ord er awar di ng Hy de Am en dm en t at to rn ey s fe es to Dr. Ali S ha y ga n was “ cro wde d wi thth or ou gh fin di ng s o f fac t” de ta il in g g ov ern m en t m is co nduc t tha t t oo k p la ce i n h is pr os ecu ti on . Uni te d S ta te s v . Sha y ga n, 6 52 F.3d12 97 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (Edm on ds on , J., co nc urrin g i n p artan d d is se nt in g i n p art ). Ju dg e Gol d e nt eredhi s ex haus ti ve Orde r aft er (1 ) sh ep he rd in g t he cas e th ro ug h t he m or e th anfif te en m on th s b etweenth e ti m e whe n Dr. Sh ay ga n was in di ct ed , un ti l thi s ap pe al was fil ed ; (2 ) pr es id in g o ve r th e fo ur -weekjury tri al of Dr. Sh ay ga n wh ic h c ul m in at ed in th e jury acqu it ti ng th e d oc to r of all 14 1 c ou nt s i n the in di ctm en t, af te r a m ere th ree h ou rs of d el ib erat io n, s ee Un it edSta te s v . Sha y gan, 6 61 F. Sup p. 2 d 1 28 9, 12 91 (S.D. Fla . 20 09 ), an d (3 ) pr es id in g o ve r anex te ns iv e two -d ay ev id en ti ary he ari ng he ldaft er the acqui tt al , on Dr. Sha y ga n’s m ot io n s eek in g re li ef u nd er the Hy de Am en dm en t, s ee i d. Thi s C ou rt’s o pi ni on set s as id e n on e o f Ju dg e Gol d’s fi nd in gs of
m is co nduc t b y

th e p ro se cu to rs , bu t re li ev es th e g ov ern m en t o f al l Hy de Am en dm en t s an ct io ns , ho ld in g t ha t the att orne y s fe es were n otpe rm it te d a s a 23m at te r of

law. Sp eci fic al ly, th e o pi ni on ho ld s t ha t s o l on g a s a p ro se cu to r ha s an ob jecti ve ba si s fo r ch arg in g ade fen da nt , eve n p at te rn s o f se rio us pro se cu to ria l
m is co nduc t ar e imm

un e fro m san ct io n u nd er the Hy de Am en dm en t. See Sh ay ga n, 65 2 F .3dat 1 31 7. To g etto th is res ul t, the op in io n re writ es th e st atut e b y li m it in g 1 th e te rm “ th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s” to m ean on ly the ba si s fo r br in gi ng ch arg es . The s ta tu te wil l n ow b e en fo rcedinou r Ci rcu itina way th atpl aces pr eci se ly the type o f pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t Co ng res sm anHy de hi gh li gh te d a s m ot iv at in g p as sa ge of t he Hy de Am en dm en t b ey on d i ts sco pe . This Co urt’s op in io n a ls o s tri ps our fed eral tri al jud ge s o f a rar el y ne ed ed , bu t cr it ic al to ol for de te rri ng an d p un is hi ng pro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t. An d t he pro se cu to ria l
m is co nduc t tha t h ap pe ne d i n Dr. Sh ay ga n’s ca se de se rv edpu ni sh m en t. 2 I. Dr. Sha y ga n was a m ed ic al do ct orpra ct ic in g i n M ia m i. Pro se cu to rs fro m th e U.S. Att orne y ’s Offic e in th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a so ug ht , andth e Gran d J ury

returne d, a t wen ty-th ree c ou ntin di ctm en t ch arg in g Dr. Sh ay gan wi th
The opinion does devise a s i n gl e exception to this rule. Where a prosec utor uses a 1 const itutionally impermissible fac tor—such as rac e or relig ion—in deciding to bring charg es, the opinion permits Hyde Amendment sanctions even if the charg es are supported by probablecause . See Shayg an, 652 F.3d at 1312–13. I find the basis for this lone exception nowher e in either the text of the Hyde Amendme nt or the statute’s leg islative history
. I do not contest the panel’ s decision to vaca te the public reprimands ag ainst the prosec utors 2 on due proc ess grounds. What Iobject to is the majority ’s Hyde Amendme nt analy sis. 24di st rib ut in g c on tro ll edsubs ta nc es ou ts id e th e sc op e o f pr of es si on al pra ct ic e an d
no t fo r a l eg it im at e m ed ic al pu rp os e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1)
. Sh ay ga n, 6 61 F. Sup p. 2 d a t 1 29 3. Th e in di ctm en t al so ch arg edth atDr. Sh ay ga n’s i m

pr op er p res cri bi ng pra ct ic es res ul te d i n t he de ath o f on e o f hi s pa ti en ts . Id. Jud ge Gol d fo un d t ha t the bri ng in g o f th e o rig in al in di ctm en t was

“ no t fr iv ol ou s o r co m

m en cedin ba d fa it h.” Id. at13 21 . Howev er, the pro se cu ti on of Dr. Sha y ga n ran i nt o p ro bl em s, an d t he pro se cu to rs res po nd edwith t ou gh ta ct ic s t ha t d et eri or at edin to di so be y in g C ou rt Ord ers , hi di ng ev id en ce, an d sh irk in g t he lo ng st an di ng ob li ga ti on s i m po se d upo n fe de ral pro se cu to rs by Brady v. M arylan d, 3 73 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1 19 4 (1 96 3) , Gig li o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 05 U.S. 15 0, 9 2 S . Ct. 7 63 (19 72 ), an d t he Jen ck s Act , 18 U.S.C. § 3 50 0. Earl y on in hi s p ro se cu ti on , Dr. Sha y ga n re fu se d t o wi th dr aw hi s u lt im at el y su cces sf ul m ot io n t o s up pr es s ce rta in st at em en ts tak enfro m hi m by inv es ti ga to rs in vi ol at io n o f hi s M ira nd a ri gh ts . The p ro se cu to rs res po nd edby tak in g t he ir c as e ag ai ns t Dr. Sh ay ga n b ackto th e Gran d J ury , to ge t a S up ers ed in g In di ctm en t whi chad de d, b y

m y co un t, 1 18 co un ts to th e o rig in al ch arg es . Sha y ga n, 6 61 F. Supp . 2dat 1 29 8. Th is is th e p ath b y whi chth e jury was ul ti m at el y pre se nt edwith a 1 41 -co un t i nd ic tm en t ag ai ns t Dr. Sh ay ga n. As I ha ve sai d, the jury qu ic kl y acqui tt edhi m

of e ve ry co un t. 25Ju dg e Gol d’s Ord er t el ls of h ow i t ca m e to pa ss th atpro se cu to rs en li st ed

two of the ir m os t i m

po rta ntwitne ss es , Carl os Vent o a ndTrin ity Cle nd en in g (fo rm er p at ie nt s o f Dr. Sh ay ga n) , to sec ret ly recor d c on ve rs at io ns with Dr. Sh ay ga n’s l awy ers an d t he ir i nv es ti ga to r. The l eadpro se cu to r pr om ot edth es e su rrep ti ti ou s re co rd in gs ba se d o n arep ort h e g otfro m hi s o wn i nv es ti ga to r, an ag en t o f th e Dru g En fo rcem en t Ag en cy (DEA). The DEA age ntrep orte d t ha t a th irdpro se cu ti on witne ss , ano th er p at ie ntna m edCo urtn ey Tuck er, was “ go in g so ut h” an d “ sh owi ng si gn s o f rel uc ta nc e” ab ou t t es ti fy in g a ga in stDr. Sha y ga n. Id . at 1 30 1. Th e DEA age ntadvi se d t ha t M s. Tu ck er was wary of c oo pe rat in g with t he go ve rn m en t i n Dr. Sh ay ga n’s ca se , bec au se sh e fea redth e g ov ern m en t
wou ldpo rtr ay

he r as a drug ad di ctdu rin g h er t es ti m on y at Dr. Sh ay ga n’s t ria l an d
m ig htev enpro se cu te he r in th e fu ture. See id . at 1 30 0. Ba se d o n t hi s re po rt, t he le adpro se cu to r co nc lu de d t ha t Dr. Sh ay ga n’s l awy ers were b eh in d M s. Tu ck er’s rel uc ta nc e to tes ti fy

an d wer e en ga gi ng in“ witne ss tam pe rin g.” See i d. at13 02
. He in st itut edth e se cretreco rd in gs to in ve st ig at e. Id
. 3
This was not the firs t alleg ation of witness tampering made by these very prosec utors related 3 to Dr. S hayg an’s de fense team. The se same two pr osecutors e arlier brought a case ag ainst Evelio Cervante s Conde, which resulted in M r. Conde being acquitted. See United States v. Conde, No. 07-cr -20973 (S.D. Fla. J uly 18, 2008) (ente ring judgme nt of acquittal). Mr. Conde was repr esente d by Mark Seitles, who later beca me one of Dr. Shayg an’s lawyers. After the Conde acquittal, the two prosec utors fi l ed a criminal complaint ag ainst Mr. Conde, charg ing him with witness tampering
. S h ay gan , 6 6 1 F. Supp. 2d at 1293. Mr. Seitles contested the charg e with supervisors in the U.S. Attorney ’s Offic e, and the witness tampering case ag ainst M r. Conde was dropped without an 26Am on g t he pro bl em s wi th th is pre m is e fo r th e su rrep ti ti ou s re co rd in g o f th e

de fen se tea m

is th atth e d efen se tea m

ne ve r di d s ay

th es e th in gs to Ms . Tuck er, an d n ei th er d idMs . Tuck er ev er t el l the DEA agen t tha t the y ha d. Se e id . at 1 29 9. On t hi s p oi nt , Ju dg e Gol d h eardtes ti m on y fro m all in vo lv ed , andm ad e a fi nd in g th atMs . Tuck er d idno t t el l the DEA agen t tha t an y on e fro m th e d efen se tea m

ha d
ev er warn edhe r th atsh e wou ldbe subjec t t o fe de ral pro se cu ti on or t ha t the go ve rn m en t wo ul d a tt em ptto po rtr ay

he r as a drug ad di ct . Id. Jud ge Gol d cred it edMs . Tuck er’s t es ti m on y th atth e d efen se team

ne ve r tr ie d t o i nt im id at e he r. Id. In de ed , th e ev id en ce i nd ic at edth atitwas the go ve rn m en t tha t fabr ic at ed Ms . Tuck er’s p ur

po rte d b adst at em en ts ab ou t Dr. Sh ay ga n wh enitin cl ud edth in gs Ms . Tuck er d idno t s ay

in th e DEA-6 re po rt ( DEA-6). Se e id . at 1 29 8. Onc e th e b al l g otrol li ng on th is ba se le ss “ witne ss tam pe rin g” in ve st ig at io n, th e d et ou r fro m

th e p ath t o ju st ic e v eere d fu rth er. The go ve rn m en t i de nt ifi edMr. Ven to an d M r. Cl en de ni ng to th e d efen se tea m as m erel y

form er Sh ay ga n p at ie nt s who wou ldserve as n eu tra l wi tn es se s t o t he fact s o f th e cas e. Intru th , th e le ad pr os ecu to r di rect edth atMr. Ven to an d M r. Cl en de ni ng be en li st edto reco rdan y co nv ers at io ns th ey

m ig htha ve with Dr. Sh ay ga n’s d efen se tea m , see id . at 1 30 4,
an d M r. Ven to was p ro vi de d wi th a reco rd in g d ev ic e fo r th atpu rp os e, id . at 1 30 5.
indictment. I d. 27W it hi n afew d ay s, M r. Ven to sec ret ly recor de d aco nv ers at io n wi thMi ch ael

Graff, wh o was th e in ve st ig at orwork in g fo r Dr. Sh ay ga n’s l awy ers . Id. Lat er, at th e g ov ern m en t’s re qu es t, b utus in g h is own equi pm en t, Mr . Cle nd en in g s ecre tl y reco rd edhi s co nv ers at io n wi th Davi d M arkus —o ne of Dr. Sh ay ga n’s l awy ers . See i d. at13 08 . Thes e rec or di ng s wer e k ep t s ecre t fr om th e d efen se tea m

an d t he Dis tri ctCo urt. The pro se cu to rs vi ol at eddi rectOrde rs of t he Co urt. J ud ge Gol d o rd eredth e go ve rn m en t t o g iv e h im

all DEA-6s so th athe co ul d re vi ew th em , incam era, be fo re the tri al be ga n. Se e id . at 1 30 0– 01 . Evenso , th e p ro se cu to rs di d n ottu rn ov er the DEA-6 wh ic h re po rte d tha t M r. Ven to ha d re co rd edhi s co nv ers at io n wi th Mr. Graf f an d a ls o d oc um en te d t he DEA agen t’s i nt erv ie w of M s. Tu ck er. See id
. at13 06 . Neithe r di d t he go ve rn m en t p ro vi de an y DEA-6 wh ic h re po rte d t ha t M r. Cl en de ni ng ha d re co rd edhi s co nv ers at io n wi th Mr. Markus . See i d. at13 10 (n ot in g t he pro se cu to r “ di d n otdi sc lo se th athe kn ew Cl en de ni ng , who tes ti fie d fo r th e Gov ern m en t af

te r Ven to , was wo rk in g wi th [th e DEA age nt ] an d t ha t h e h ad ag reedto m ak e rec or di ng s” ). Als o n otpro du cedwas t he “ cru ci al DEA-6” refl ect in g t ha t M r. Ven to ha d e nt eredin to a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t ag reem en t wi th

28th e g ov ern m en t o n J anua ry 16 , 20 09 . Id. at13 09
. As Jud ge Gol d n ot ed , if the se 4 DEA-6 re po rts ha d b een pro du cedto hi m as h e h adord ered , Dr. Sha y ga n a ndth e Co urt wo ul d h av e kno wn ab ou t the reco rd in g o f th e d efen se tea m , andth atMr. Ven to an d M r. Cl en de ni ng were s erv in g a s DEA in fo rm an ts , in st eadof app eari ng as ne ut ral witne ss es . See i d. at13 17
. Beyondth es e v io la ti on s o f th e Co urt’s Ord ers , th e p ro se cu to rs als o v io la te d th ei r du ti es un de r Bra dy, G ig li o a ndth e Je nc ks Act. Forex am pl e, th e p ro se cu to rs 5 kn ew of in fo rm at io n g iv enby D r. Sh ay gan’s p at ie nt s t ha t was fav or ab le to hi m , bu t wi th he ldit . See i d. at13 17 –1 8. Th is was i m po rta ntbe cau se itwentdi rect ly to th e p ro se cu ti on ’s th eo ry th atDr. Sha y gan was no t a l eg it im at e d oc to r. See i d. at 13 18 . Gig li o was vi ol at ed , forex am pl e, whe n t he pro se cu ti on ne ve r di sc lo se d t o

Dr. Shayg an’s trial beg an on Fe bruar y 17, 2009. The fac t of Mr. Vento’s J anuar y 16, 2009 4 confide ntial informant agree ment with the g overnme nt was not written in the form of a DEA-6 until Marc h 3, 2009, which was during the trial, and aft er t h e d ef ense had alre ady lear

ned about Mr. Vento’s r ecor ding of

Mr. Gra ff. See Shayg an, 661 F . Supp. 2d at 1309. J udg e Gold’s fifty -pag e Order makes so many finding s that it is not prac tical t o s et them 5 all out here
. Be yond what is set out in the main text of this dissent, J udg e Gold delineate d his finding s of (1) instances in which the prosec utors offe red live testimony which varie d from their own writ t en aff

idavits previously g iven to the Court, see Shayg an, 661 F. Supp. 2d at 1302, 1306; (2) instances in which various members of the U.S. Attorney ’s Offic e and law enfor ceme nt ag ents g ave d i ffe ring acc ounts of the same events, see id. at 1302; (3) policies of the U.S. Atto rn ey ’s Of fi ce reg arding investigations of opposi ng counsel being violated, see id. at 1303–04; and (4) members of the U.S. Attorney ’s Offic e “ca sually” discussing with a group o f people at dinner, the fac t that while he was testifying during Dr. Shayg an’s trial, Mr. Clendening blurted out that he had rec orded his conver sation with Dr. Shayg an’s lawyer, when no member of the prosec ution had ever disclosed the exist ence of these r ecordings to the Court, see id. at 1312–13. 29Dr. Sha y gan t ha t i t h adco nt act eda Fl or id a p ro se cu to r on be ha lf o f Mr.

Cl en de ni ng —wh o was faci ng fel on y dru g c ha rg es inFlo rid a st at e co urt—to
co m m un ic at e th atMr. Cl en de ni ng ha d b een ass is ti ng th e fed eral go ve rn m en t i n i ts effo rts to pro se cu te Dr. Shay gan. Se e id . at 1 30 9. Th e g ov ern m en t v io la te d t he Je nc ks Act, wh enitpo ss es se d re co rd edst at em en ts of M r. Ven to an d M r. Cl en de ni ng sp eak in g t o m em be rs of t he Sh ay gan d efen se tea m , bu t d idno t turn ov er tho se st at em en ts in co nn ect io n wi th Vent o a ndCle nd en in g’s t es ti m on y at tri al . See i d. at13 19 –2 0. Al l thi s the go ve rn m en t fa il edto do ev eninth e fac e o f sp eci fic de fen se reque st s fo r Bra dy, G ig li o a ndJen ck s m at eri al , anda st an di ng Co urt Ord er t o p ro du ce i t. II. As wi th th e fac tu al in qu iry, Jud ge Gol d d il ig en tl y un de rto okth e res po ns ib il it y

im po se d o n h im

by the Hy de Am en dm en t t o d et erm in e whe th er thi s m is co nduc t b y

th e g ov ern m en t am ou nt edto a po si ti on th atwas v ex at io us , fri vo lo us or i n b adfai th . As I h av e sa id , he m ad e fi nd in gs aft er h eari ng ora l te st im on y an d re cei vi ng writ te n a ffi davi ts fro m all in vo lv ed . He fou ndge ne ral ly th atth e two Sh ay ga n p ro se cu to rs “ ex hi bi te d apa tt ernof ‘win -at -al l-c os t’ beh av io r . . . tha t was co nt rary to t he ir e th ic al ob li ga ti on s as pro se cu to rs an d abre ach of th ei r ‘heav y

ob li ga ti onto th e acc us ed .’ ” Id . at 1 31 5. J ud ge Gol d’s fi nd in g i n t hi s 30reg ardwas s up po rte d b y co un tl es s ev id en ti ary de ta il s wh ic h c an no t al l b e res ta te d he re. I wil l o nl y

bri efl y su m m ari ze. Am on g J ud ge Gol d’s s pe ci fic fin di ng s o f ba d fa it h was hi s fi nd in g t ha t the le adpro se cu to r un de rto okth e su rrep ti ti ou s re co rd in gs inth e so -cal le d wi tn es s ta m pe rin g i nv es ti ga ti on “ fo r th e b adfai th pu rp os e o f se ek in g t o d is qu al ify the de fen se lawyers fo r co nf

li ct -o f-i nt eres t i m

m ed ia te ly prio r to tri al .” Id . at 1 31 0. Ju dg e Gol d fo un d t ha t the lea d p ro se cu to r kn ew th atif k ey de fen se lawyers fo r Dr. Sh ay ga n c ou ldbe di squa li fie d ju stbe fo re the tri al , th ey wou ldha ve to st ep do wn imm ed ia te ly. See i d. at13 11 . That“ cat as tro ph ic ” b lo w, itwas h op ed , wou ld

“ fo rce” Dr. Sha y ga n t o p le adgu il ty. Id. Ju dg e Gol d a ls o u nd ert oo k a n e xt en si ve di sc us si on of h ow t he lea d pr os ecu to r fai le d t o fo ll ow ei th er the po li ci es of h is U.S. Atto rn ey ’s Offic e o r th e sp eci fic in st ru ct io n g iv enhi m to rem ov e h im se lf f

ro m th e in ve st ig at io n h e h ad in it ia te d a ga in stop po si ng co un se l. No ti ng ho w th e st ric t “ ta in t wal l” be twee n t he Sh ay ga n p ro se cu ti on an d t he in ve st ig at io n o f Dr. Sh ay ga n’s d efen se tea m ha d be enrep eat ed ly breac he d fo r “ ta ct ic al ” p ur po se s, i d. at13 11 , Ju dg e Gol d fo un d th atth e le adpro se cu to r act edwith “ im pl ic itbi as an d i n b adfai th ” inth is reg ardas well . Id. at13 02
.

31Ju dg e Gol d d rew a “ st ro ng in fere nc e[]” th atth e Supe rs ed in g In di ctm en t

ad di ng 11 8 c ou nt s t o t he twen ty-th ree c ou nt s o f th e o rig in al in di ctm en t was

“ si gn ifi can tl y

m ot iv edby ill -wil l.” Id . at 1 29 8. J ud ge Gol d fo un d t ha t the ad di ti on of s o m an y

ch arg es was d es ig ne d t o c om pe l a g ui lt y

pl ea fr om

Dr. Sh ay ga n b y

“ gr eat ly inc reas [in g] th e ti m e an d c os t o f th e tr ia l” an d b y de la y in g t he tri al so as t o p ro lo ng th e “ st ric t co nd it io ns of h ou se arre st ” whi chwere ex act in g a he av y ps y ch ol og ic al to ll on Dr. Sha y ga n. Id
. Fi na ll y , Ju dg e Gol d fo un d t ha t the pro se cu ti on ’s fai lu re t o turn o ve r th e DEA-6 d oc um en ti ng th atMr. Ven to ha d re co rd edth e d efen se tea m was “ kn owi ng an d i n b adfai th .” Id . at 1 30 6. He fo un d t ha t the pro se cu ti on ’s fai lu re t o turn o ve r th e DEA-6 re po rt o f th e in te rv ie w of M s. Tu ck er was “ wil lfu l, v ex at io us an d i n ba d fa it h.” Id. at13 01 . Thes e act io ns an d m an y ot he rs , Ju dg e Gol d c on cl ud ed , were “ co ns ci ou s an d d el ib erat e wro ng s” ari si ng fro m “ th e p ro se cu to rs ’ m or al ob li qu it y .” Id . at 1 32 1. An d fa r fro m is ol at edwron gs , he e m

ph as iz ed , th ey

fit in to a “pa tt ern ” o f de sp erat e co nduc t d es ig ne d t o s av e a ca se th atha d b eco m e weakfro m

ge tt in g e ve n wea ke r. See i d. at13 15 , 13 22 . It was th is pa tt ernof

32m is co nduc t tha t l edJu dg e Gol d t o c on cl ud e sa nc ti on s wer e warra nt ed . See i d. at

13 21 –2 2. 6 III. As I h av e sa id , th is Co urt’s o pi ni on inSh ay ga n d oe s n otsetasi de th e fin di ng s o f fac t tha t u nd erg ird edJu dg e Gol d’s Hy de Am en dm en t an al y si s. In de ed , th e o pi ni on ass um es th atth e p ro se cu to rs di d a ndsai d e ve ryth in g t ha t Ju dg e Gol d fo un d t o b e true . See Sh ay ga n, 6 52 F.3dat 1 31 1, 1 31 5– 16 . Neithe r do es itpo in t t o e rro r in Ju dg e Gol d’s fi nd in gs of f actth atth e p ro se cu to rs act edin vi ol at io n o f th ei r ethi cal ob li ga ti on s as rep res en ta ti ve s o f ou r go ve rn m en t. See id
. 7 Rat he r, th e o pi ni on ass um es th atth e o nl y fact orth atrefl ect s t he po si ti on of t he go ve rn m en t (o th er tha n t he na rro w exc ep ti on I ha ve m en ti on ed ) is th e b as is forth e ch arg es ag ai ns t the de fen da nt . See i d. at13 11 –1 6. Th is ast ou nd in gl y na rro w read in g o f th e te rm

“ th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s” co ll ap se s the Hy de Am en dm en t i nqui ry

in to on ly a sin gl e que st io n: were the ch arg es ag ai ns t the

This Court’s Shayg an opinion implies that the District Court rested the awa rd on “discove ry 6 violati o n s al o n e. ” 652 F.3d at 1315. That is a plainly incorre ct char acte rization of J udg e Gold’s Hyde Amendment analy sis. J udg e Gold found that the sum total o f th e prosec utors’ conduct supported the a

war d. Judg e Pryor say s in his c o n c u r r e nce that J udg e Gold’s finding s of misconduct “we re vacated 7 by the unanimous panel.” Concurring Op. at 12. Howeve r, I do not rea d the panel opinion this way . The only thing that the m ajority opinion does i s to question in passing the reliability of the re cord afte r vac atingthe public re primands on due pr ocess grounds. See Shay g an, 652 F .3d at 1319. 33de fen da ntba se le ss ? See i d. at13 11 –1 3. If the an swe r to th atqu es ti on is no , th en

“ th e p ro se cu ti on is ob

jecti ve ly reaso nabl e,” an d t he Hy de Am en dm en t i nqui ry co m es to anab ruptha lt . Id. at13 17
. App lying th is tes t, the op in io n c on cl ud es th atso le ly becau se pro babl e cau se supp orte d t he ch arg es in th e Supe rs ed in g In di ctm en t, the pro se cu ti on of Dr. Sh ay ga n was “ ob

jecti ve ly reaso nabl e” an d the refo re n otinba d fa it h. Se e id . at 13 13 , 13 15 –1 6. Th is ap pr oa ch m ak es all of t he pro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t fo un d b y Ju dg e Gol d i rrel ev an t. An d b y th is rou te , th e o pi ni on reac he s t he rem ark ab le ho ld in g t ha t the Dis tri ctCo urt h ad“no di sc ret io n t o a wardSh ay ga n a tt orne y ’s fees
an d c os ts .” Id . at 1 31 7 (e m ph as is ad de d) . Yet, th is ho ld in g c on tra di ct s wh at Co ng res s s ai d wh enitpa ss edth e Hy de Am en dm en t an d re nd ers th e st atut e in cap ab le of d oi ng whatCo ng res s i nt en de d. As a res ul t, an d n otsu rp ris in gl y , it
m ark s an un warra nt edde pa rtu re fro m th e d eci si on s o f ou r si st er Ci rcu it s an d fr om Supr em e Co urt p rece de nt . Inpa ss in g t he Hy de Am en dm en t Co ng res s s ou gh t t o re sp on d t o p at te rn s o f pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t, i nc lu di ng in st an ces wher e p ro se cu to rs “ ke ep in fo rm at io n fr om

[th e d efen da nt ] th atth e la w says th ey m us t d is cl os e,” “ hi de in fo rm at io n” an d “ subo rnpe rjury.” 14 3 C on g. Re c. H77 86 -0 4, atH77 91 (da il y

34ed . Sep t. 2 4, 1 99 7) (st at em en t o f Rep . Hy de ). Thu s, i t s eem s C on gr es s cl earl y 8
un de rs to odth atth e p res en ce o f pr ob ab le cau se do es no t, an d s ho ul d n ot , exc us e pa tt ern s o f gr os s p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t. In de ed , th e le gi sl at iv e h is to ry ex pr es sl y refl ect s t ha t “ a g ran d ju ry fin di ng of p ro babl e cau se to supp ort an in di ctm en t d oe s n otpre cl ud e a jud ge fro m [award in g a tt orne y ’s fees ]. ” H.R. Rep
. No. 1 05 -4 05 , at 1 94 (19 97 ) (Co nf . Rep .), rep rin te d i n 1 99 7 U.S.C.C .A.N. 294 1, 30 45 (em ph as is ad de d)
. To en su re tha t the ba si s fo r th e ch arg es alo ne do es no t l im itth e av ai labi li ty of san ct io ns , Con gr es s ad op te d t he term “ th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s” fro m th e Equ al Acces s t o J us ti ce Act(EAJA). See Uni te d S ta te s v . Gil be rt, 1 98 F.3d 12 93 , 13 00 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (n ot in g t ha t Co ng res sm anHy de “pa tt ern edhi s am en dm en t af

te r” the EAJA). The EAJ A pro vi de s fo r at to rn ey s fe es to li ti ga nt s who pre va il ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s i n c iv il cas es wher e th e g ov ern m en t’s po si ti onis no t “ subs ta nt ia ll y jus ti fie d.” See 2 8 U.S.C. § 24 12 (d )(1 )(A). By th e ti m e Co ng res s was co ns id eri ng Co ng res sm anHy de ’s pro po sa l, an d i n t he co nt ex t
Remarka bly , Judg e Pryor’s concur renc e to the denial of en banc revie w say s that 8 Congr essman Hyde’s statements are irrele vant as to what his own proposal means. See Concurring Op. at 16–18. J udg e Pryor emphasizes that Congr essman Hyde’s statements wer e made in support of an earlier version of the Amendment. I d. at 17. But, while Congr ess made sever al chang es to the statutory text betwee n the first and final versions of the Hyde Amendment, none had any thing to do wit h the meaning of the term “the position of the United States,” which rema ined unchang ed throughout the leg islative proce ss. See United States v. Gilbert, 198 F.3d 1293, 1299–1302 (11th Cir. 1999). 35of

award in g a tt orne y s fe es ag ai ns t the go ve rn m en t, the term “ th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s” ha d a cqui reda sp eci fic m ean in g. In Co m m is si on er, INS v . Jea n, 49 6 U.S. 1 54 , 11 0 S . Ct. 2 31 6 (1 99 0) , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t the term requi res a co urt t o c on si de r “ a cas e as anin cl us iv e who le .” Id . at 1 61 –6 2, 1 10 S. Ct . at 2 32 0. Bas edon th is ex pa ns iv e in te rp ret at io n o f th e te rm “po si ti on ,” th e Fi rs t Ci rcu itha s re co gn iz edth at , un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t, an awardm ay pro pe rly be ba se d o n “ anarra y

of g ov ern m en t co nduc t b ot h b efo re the in di ctm en t an d du rin g l it ig at io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Kno tt , 25 6 F .3d20 , 31 (1s t Ci r. 20 01 ). In t he
sa m e way , th e Si xth C irc ui t h as ob se rv edth atun de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t,

“ [w]henass es si ng whet he r th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s was ve xa ti ou s, fri vo lo us , or i n b adfai th , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d [e va lu at e] the cas e as an in cl us iv e who le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Heav rin , 33 0 F .3d72 3, 7 30 (6t h C ir. 2 00 3) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . Reject in g t he id ea tha t the Hy de Am en dm en t
co nt em pl at es “ a p reci se li tm

us tes t,” t he Six th Cir cu itcau ti on edth atco urts “ m us t
no t fa il to see th e fo res t fo r th e tr ees .” Id
. Deci si on s fr om

ot he r Ci rcu it s al so refl ectth atth e te rm “po si ti on ” requi res a co urt t o e xa m in e “ a cas e as anin cl us iv e who le ,” Je an , 49 6 U.S. at16 1– 62 , 11 0 S
. Ct . at 2 32 0. Se e, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Por ch ay , 53 3 F .3d70 4, 7 07 –0 8, 7 11 (8t h 36Ci r. 20 08 ) (ex am in in g wh ethe r go ve rn m en t co nduc t fo ll owi ng th e d is m is sa l o f th e

in di ctm en t was in ba d fa it h) ; Un it edSta te s v . Man ch es te r Farm in g P ’shi p, 3 15 F.3 d 1 17 6, 1 18 5– 86 & n .25 (9t h C ir. 2 00 3) (ex am in in g wh ethe r go ve rn m en t
co nduc t b ot h a fte r th e in di ctm en t was fil edan d dur in g t ria l d em on strat edba d fai th ). Thi s C irc ui t s tand s al on e init s n ow es tabl is he d ru le th atinord er t o d is cern

“ th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s,” aco urt n eedon ly exam in e th e b as is forth e ch arg es . See Sh ay gan, 6 52 F.3dat 1 31 2– 16 . I fin d g reatiro ny in t ha t, u nd er o ur ru le , th e type o f m is co nduc t Co ng res sm anHy de sp eci fic al ly decri edinurg in g h is
co ll eag ue s t o a do pthi s amendm en t i s n ow b ey on d the sco pe of t he law. Th is ne w an d my op ic vi ew of

whatco ns ti tu te s “ th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s” un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t l ead s t o apa rti cu la rly sh oc ki ng res ul t i n t hi s ca se . For m e th is is m os t p la in ly m an ife st edin th e Co urt’s co nc lu si onth atth es e p ro se cu to rs ’ pa tt ern of co nduc t— on ly partof wh ic h I h av e d es cri be d h ere—was “ ob jecti ve ly
reas on ab le .” Id . at 1 31 7. I h av e n o d oubtth is pa tt ernof wro ng s, u nd ert ak ento
sa ve a fai li ng cas e, am ou nt edto “ th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” IV. Inclo si ng , I m

us t s ay th atI real iz e th ere a re fe w les s p op ul ar cl as se s o f pe op le forwho m

to advo cat e th anth os e ch arg edwith fe de ral cri m es . One m ig ht 37sa y

th ata pe rs on , li ke Dr. Sha y ga n, wh o h as be enacqui tt edha s n ot hi ng to
co m pl ai n abo ut . ButCo ng res s t ho ug htdi ffer en tl y . The ru le s t ha t g ov ernou r cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em

ha ve de ve lo pe d o ve r th e li fe o f ou r co un try to a ll ow t ho se accu se d o f cri m es to kn ow the ev id en ce ag ai ns t the m ; t o b e ad vi se d o f th e weakne ss es in th atev id en ce; an d t o b e ab le to co nf ro ntth e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t the m with fu ll kn owl ed ge of i nf orm at io n wh ic h m ig htco lo r th ei r te st im on y . Ju stli ke th e res t o f us , Dr. Sha y ga n was co ns ti tu ti on al ly ent it le d t o a ll of t hi s as he face d th e se rio us ch arg es lev el edag ai ns t h im . The g ov ern m en t v io la te d Dr. Sh ay ga n’s rig ht s, an d n ow, co nt rary to wh atCo ng res s h as pro vi de d, h e is lef t al on e to pa y

th e co st s h e su ffer edat the ha nd s o f th es e ru le bre ak ers . It a ls o s tri ke s m e as da ng ero us to ren de r tr ia l ju dg es m ere s pe ct at or s o f
ex tre m e g ov ern m en t m is co nduc t. By en act in g t he Hy de Am en dm en t, Co ng res s ga ve tri al jud ge s t he res po ns ib il it y to de te rm in e whe th er “ th e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s was ve xa ti ou s, fr iv ol ou s, o r in ba d fa ith.” I say Ju dg e Gol d pe rfo rm edth atunpl eas an t dut y adm irabl y , andhe ha d e ve ry reas on inlaw t o ex pe ctth athi s Ord er wo ul d b e aff irmed. Ind eed , th is Co urt h as sai d “pr os ecu to rs m us t ex pe ctth atth is co urt wi ll supp ort d is tri ctjud ge s wh o t ak e rea so nabl e st ep s to co rrec t p ro se cu to ria l co nduc t tha t i s n otrig ht .” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il so n, 1 49

38F.3 d 1 29 8, 1 30 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . This Co urt’s d eci si onno t t o re co ns id er thi s

cas e enba nc for sa ke s t ha t p rin ci pl e. I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t.

39