2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-5-2009 

# U SA v . B re nt D et elich P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2285

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B r e nt D e t e l ich" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 307. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/307NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 08- 2285

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. BR E NT J . DE T E L I CH , A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 05- cr - 00339- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J o yF lo w e rs C o n ti

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober29, 2009 B e f o re : S M IT H , F IS H E R a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: N ovember5, 2009 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . B re n t J. D e telic h (“ D e telic h ” ) a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n o f o n e c o u n t o f

k n o w in g ly a n d w ill f u llye x e c u tin g o r a ttem p tin g to e x e c u te a sc h e m e to d e f ra u d a h e a lth c a re b e n e f it p ro g ra m in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 4 7 a n d 2 a n d o n e c o u n t o f m a il fra u d in2

fur t her ance of the s cheme i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 1341 and 2. Forthe r eas ons b e l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. D et el i ch w as acc us ed byt he G overnm entof l eadi ng a s cheme t o defr aud H ig h m a rk B lu e C ro ss /B lu e S h ield (“ H ig h m a rk ” ) th ro u g h A d v a n c e d M e d ica l an d H o listic (“ A M H ” ), t h e c h ir o p ra c tic p ra c tic e h e o w n e d a n d o p e ra te d in H e rm ita g e , P e n n s y lv a n ia . A ccor di ng t o evi dence offe r ed att r i al , D et el i ch puthi s s cheme i nt o eff ects hor t l yaft er openi ng a s econd A M H offi ce i n N i l es , O hi o. W hi l e i n N i l es , D et el i ch w oul d as k offi ce as s i s t ant s i n t he H erm i t age of fi ce t o “pul l ” tr eatm entcar ds and bi l l H i ghm ark for t r e a t me n t s s u p p o s e d l yg i v e n t o c e r t a i n Hi g h ma r k - c o v e r e d p a t i e n t s . E mp l o y e e s o f AM H eventual l yl earned thatt heyw er e bi l l i ng H i ghm ark forpr ocedur es thatthe pat i ent s never rec eive d . E v iden ce w as a lso p rese n ted a t tri al th at A M H em p loy ee s, at D eteli ch ’s di r ect i on, engage d i n “upcodi ng, ” a pr oces s of bi l l i ng H i ghm ark form or e expe ns i ve pr ocedur es t han thos e r ender ed. P ati en ts w ith H igh m ark insu ran ce w h o w ere reg u larl yb il led f o r serv ices tha t w ere no trendered w ere r eferr ed to byA M H em ploy ees as bei ng on the “h i tl i st . ” H i tl i st pat i ent s w oul d r ece i ve r ei m bur s ementchec ks fr om H i ghm ark, cas h t hem, and br i ng t heT he dat es of thes e tr ans act i ons ar e i m por t antbeca us e theyoccurw i t hi n t he fi ve- 1 y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forheal t h car e and mai l fr aud. 18 U . S. C . § 3282( a) . D et el i ch w as notpr os ecut ed forconductpr i ort o N ovember3, 2000. 3 m oneyt o A M H ordi r ect l yt o D et el i ch. M anyof thes e pat i ent s w oul d al s o s i gn bl ank t r eatm entcar ds t o fac i l i t at e A M H ’ s bi l l i ng fors ervi ces notr ender ed. A M H and D et el i ch w o u ld f re q u e n tly re im b u rs e th e h it lis t p a tie n ts s o m e p e rc e n ta g e o f th is p a ym e n t, a p ro c e s s k n o w n a s “ f

e e -s p litti n g .” D et el i ch off

er ed evi dence t hatdur i ng 1999 and 2000 he i ns t i tut ed oper at i onal r eform s atA M H . D et el i ch r equi r ed ethi cs tr ai ni ng foral l empl oy ees and r et ai ned a codi ng cons ul t antt o es t abl i s h a bi l l i ng pr ogr am and an at t orneyt o es t abl i s h a w r i t t en c o m p lian c e p ro g ra m . D e telic h m o v e d to C a lifo rn ia in 2 0 0 0 , lea v in g D r. D o n a ld P ro p e r in c h a r g e o f

d a y - t o - d a yo p e r a t i o n s a tAM H. E m p lo y e e s a t A M H c o n tin u e d to b ill h it l ist p a tien ts a f ter D e telic h m o v e d to C al i forni a. H i tl i s tpat i ent s br oughtthe ca s h fr om r ei m bur s ementchec ks t o A M H i ns t ead of t o D et el i ch per s onal l y . Fori ns t ance , on oraft erN ovember3, 2000, A M H s ubm i t t ed ei ght een bi l l s t o H i ghm ark fort r eatm ent s notr ender ed t o D or otheyFender , the mot herof a n AM H e mpl oy e e . O ne H i gh mar k c he c k f or$8 00 . 00 w a s s e ntt o M s . Fe nd e rvi a U . S. m a il o n N o v e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 0 . W h ile D e telic h re m a in e d in C a lifo rn ia, D r. P ro p e r w ro te to 1 D et el i ch i nform i ng hi m t hatt he hi tl i s tbi l l i ng w as cont i nui ng, butD et el i ch t ook no add i t i on al act i on t o st op t he il l egal bi l l i ng pract i ces.4

I n l at e 2000, t he FB I began i nves t i gat i ng bi l l i ng i r r egul ar i t i es atA M H . St i l l under i nves t i gat i on, A M H cl os ed i t s door s i n M ar ch, 2002. Shor t l yther eaf t er , D r . Pr operand hi s w i fe, B ever l ee, i n cooper at i on w i t h t he governm enti nves t i gat i on, r ecor ded a conver s at i on t heyhad w i t h D et el i ch on A pr i l 17, 2002. I n r es pons e t o ques t i ons aboutt he i nves t i gat i on, D et el i ch r epl i ed, “The bes t , s afe s tpl ace i s t o notknow anyt hi ng” and s ta te d , “ I’ m n o t g o n n a k n o w a n yth in g .” D et el i ch w as i ndi ct ed i n N ovember , 2005. Fol l ow i ng a tr i al , D et el i ch w as c o n v icte d o f

h e a lth c a re f

ra u d a n d m a il fra u d o n M a rc h 2 , 2 0 0 7 . H e w a s s u b se q u e n tly s ent ence d t o t hr ee y ear s i n pr i s on and tw o y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e and or der ed t o pay r es t i tut i on t o H i ghm ark. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew evi dent i aryrul i ngs m ade bythe D i s tr i ct C o u rt f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Ke mp , 5 0 0 F .3 d 2 5 7 , 2 9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n r evi ew i ng w hethera r at i onal j ur ycoul d have f ound el ement s of an of

fens e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , w e appl yt he s ame st andar d as the D i s t r i ctC ourt , and, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , w i l l s us t ai n t he ver di cti f any r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 56 6 F . 3d 35 3, 36 1 (3d C i r. 20 09 ). W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng on di s m i s s al of an i ndi ctm ent , acc ept i ng5

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s u n le s s th e ya re c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . U ni t ed Stat es v. N ol an- C ooper , 1 5 5 F .3 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). F in a lly , w e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew in det erm i ni ng w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j uryi ns t ruct i ons m i s s t at ed appl i cabl e l aw or im p ro p e rl ys h if

te d th e b u rd e n o f

p ro o f. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Zehr bach , 47 F. 3d 1252, 1260 (3 d . C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Kor ey , 472 F. 3d 89, 93 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . I f ther e i s no m i sst at em ent ori m proper shi ft i ng , then w e revi ew the instruct i on s them sel ves fo r abuse o f d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

of f ecker , 5 3 0 F . 3 d 1 3 7 , 1 7 3 -74 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). III . D et el i ch appe al s hi s convi ct i on ar gui ng thatthe j uryw as i m pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed on t he i s s ue of w i t hdr aw al , t hatt her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hathe di d notw i t hdr aw befor e N ovember3, 2000, thathe w as p re ju d ice d b ya d u p licito u s in d ictm e n t, an d th a t tes tim o n ial h e a rsa yw a s a d m itt e d in vi ol at i on of the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. W e w i l l cons i dereac h ar gum enti n turn. A. 1. D et el i ch ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tm i s s t at ed the l aw byi ns t ruct i ng the j uryt hat he w as r equi r ed t o come for w ar d w i t h evi dence thathe compl et el yw i t hdr ew fr om the fr audul ents cheme, w hi ch he a l l eges m i s s t at es the l aw and i m pr oper l ys hi ft s the bur den of pr oof fr om t he governm entt o D et el i ch.6

T h e D istric t C o u rt in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t th e ym u st f in d th a t D e telic h “ c o m p lete ly w i t hdr ew fr om t he s cheme. A par t i al ort empora r yw i t hdr aw al i s nots uffi ci ent . ” ( A pp. 1112- 13. ) T he C our tcont i nued, “I f y ou fi nd thatthe def endantpr oduced e vi dence thathe w ith d re w f

ro m th is s c h e m e b e f

o re N o v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 0 , the g o v e rn m e n t ca n n o t re st o n its pr oof thathe part i ci pat ed atone t i m e i n t he i l l egal s cheme. I n thatci r cumst ance , the governm enthas t he bur den t o pr ove bey ond r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endantw as p a rt ic ip a tin g in th e s c h e m e o n o r a f te r N o v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 0 .” (A p p . 1 1 1 3 -1 4 .) D et el i ch’ s ar gum enthas t w o par t s , nei t herof w hi ch ar e ava i l i ng. Fi r s t , D et el i ch a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s in stru c tio n th a t D e telic h m u st h a v e “ c o m p lete ly w ith d r[ a w n ] f

ro m th e sc h e m e ” w a s a n in c o rre c t sta tem e n t o f th e law o f

th is C irc u it. It is no t . W e hav e repeat edlyheld that a defend ant’ s w i t hd raw al from an il l egal s chem e m ust be “c om pl et e. ” See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ont i nentalG r oup, I nc. , 603 F. 2d 444 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ( evi dence m us ts how defe ndant“i n good fai t h di s avow ed and c om pl et el yw i t hdr ew ” fr om th e c o n sp ira c y ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. U. S. G

yps um C o. , 550 F. 2d 115, 130 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ( w i t hdr aw al r equi r es “s om e def i ni t e, deci s i ve s t ep, i ndi cat i ng a compl et e di s as s oci at i on f ro m th e u n law f

u l en terp rise ” ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. C hes t er , 407 F. 2d 53, 55 ( 3d C i r . 1969) ( defe ndantm us tm ake a “ful l , deci s i ve, and compl et e” w i t hdr aw al fr om an i l l egal co n sp ir ac y ). O uropi ni on i n U

n itedS ta tes v . S tee le , 685 F. 2d 793, 803 ( 3d C i r . 1982) , r el i ed on byD et el i ch, i s nott o t he contr ary . I n S tee le , w e hel d t hatevi dence of w i t hdr aw al7

i nvol ved “typi cal l yei t hera ful l confe s s i on t o t he author i t i es orcomm uni cat i on t o hi s cocons pi r at or s t hathe has abandone d t he ent erpr i s e and i t s goal s . ” I d. at803- 04. R ather th a n m o d if

yth e lo n g -e sta b lish e d ru le th a t a d e f e n d a n t m u st p ro v id e e v id e n c e o f c o m p lete w ith d ra w a l, S tee le m e re lyp ro v id e s a n o n -e x h a u stiv e list o f a f f irm a tiv e a c ts th a t w e w ill t ypi cal l yfi nd m eett hatbur den. T he cruci al i nqui r yi s w hetherthe def endanthas engage d in “ [ a ]f f irm a tiv e a c ts in c o n sis ten t w ith th e o b jec t o f th e c o n sp ira c ya n d c o m m u n ica ted in a mannerr eas onabl ycal cul at ed t o r eac h co- cons pi r at or s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. A ntar , 53 F. 3d 568, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . A nys uch ac ti s evi dence of compl et e w i t hdr aw al , and the d e f e n d a n t’s p rim a f

a c ie b u rd e n is th e re b ym e t. Second, D et el i ch ar gues t hatthe j uryi ns t ruct i on i m pr oper l ys hi ft ed the bur den of pr oof fr om t he governm entt o t he def endant . T he pl ai n l anguage of the i ns t ruct i on bel i es th is c o n ten tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt c lea rlyin stru c ted th e ju ryth a t D e telic h o n lyh a d to offe revi dence of hi s compl et e w i t hdr aw al , notpr ove thathe ac tual l yw i t hdr ew . T he i ns t ruct i ons l eftno doubtt hati f s uch evi dence w as pr es ent ed, the governm enthad the b u rd e n o f

p ro v in g b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t D e telic h h a d n o t w ith d ra w n p rio r to N ovember3, 2000. W e th e re f

o re h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t m iss tate th e law o r im p ro p e rly sh if t th e b u rd e n o f

p ro o f to D e telic h o n th e iss u e o f w ith d ra w a l.8 2. W e al s o bel i eve thatt her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fora j uryt o fi nd thatD et el i ch p a rticip a ted in th e sc h e m e a f ter N o v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 0 , the re b yp lac in g ill e g a l co n d u c t w ith in t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T hi s C our tappl i es “a de fer ent i al s t andar d i n det erm i ni ng w hethera j ur y ’ s ver di ctr es t s on s uffi ci entevi dence . ” U n itedS ta tes v . O zc e lik , 527 F. 3d 88, 93 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , w e w i l l s us t ai n a convi ct i on i f “a nyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. V

oigt , 89 F. 3d 1050, 1080 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng J a c k so n v . V irg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 319 ( 1979) ) . A n appel l antr ai s i ng a cl ai m of i ns uffi ci encyof the evi dence bear s a “ve r yheavy bur den. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 180, 187 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons o m itted). A reas on able j urycou l d h ave f ou nd that D et el i ch d i d n ot m ake a p ri m a facie cas e of w i t hdr aw al bypr es ent i ng evi dence thathe moved t o C al i forni a and i ns t i tut ed ethi cs tra in in g a t A M H . A g e o g ra p h ic r e lo c a tio n , b yitse lf , d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rilyim p lyc o m p lete d isa ss o c iatio n w ith a c rim in a l en terp rise , p a rticu lar lyw h e n D e telic h d id n o t tell a n yo f h is co- cons pi r at or s t hathe w i s hed t o s t op A M H ’ s fr audul entbi l l i ng pr act i ces and cont i nued t o r eap f i nanci al benef

i t s fr om t he i l l egal s cheme. A r eas onabl e j urycoul d per cei ve D et el i ch’ s m ove t o C al i forni a and i m pl ement at i on of ethi cs r eform s atA M H as m er el yan eff or tt o defl ectbl ame, nott o w i t hdr aw fr om the s cheme.9

M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f

De t e l i c h e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o f

wi t h d r a wa l , we bel i eve thata r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d have f ound t hatthe governm ents at i s fi ed i t s bur den of r ebut t i ng t hatevi dence . T he governm entpr es ent ed evi dence thatD et el i ch r et ai ned i nfl uence overA M H w hi l e r es i di ng i n C al i forni a thr ough hi s cont i nued ow ner s hi p of the pr act i ce, t hathe pr ofi t ed fr om t he fr audul entbi l l i ngs as the ow nerof A M H , and thathe k n e w a b o u t th e o n g o in g im p ro p e r b illin g p ra c tic e s a n d d id n o th in g to s to p th e m . A r eas onabl e j ur y , pr es ent ed w i t h s uch evi dence , coul d eas i l yfi nd thatthe governm entm et i t s bur den of pr ovi ng bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatD et el i ch di d notw i t hdr aw fr om t he sc h e m e p rio r to N o v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 0 , ev e n in th e f a c e o f a p rim a f

a c ie c a se o f

w ith d ra w a l. W e ther efor e hol d t hatt her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fora j uryt o fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatD et el i ch di d notw i t hdr aw fr om the s cheme pr i ort o N ovember3, 2000. B. N ext , D et el i ch ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o s t r i ke the i nd i ct m ent as du pli ci t ou s. D up l i ci t ou s i nd i ct m ents m aybe st ri cken becau se of t he ri sk t hatt heyw i l l l ead t o gui l t yver di ct s w her e tw el ve j ur or s bel i eve a defe ndanti s gui l t ybut “w ho w er e notunani m ous i n t hei ras s es s m entof w hi ch ac ts uppor t ed the ver di ct . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B er os , 833 F. 2d 455, 462 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . H ow ever , a dupl i ci t ous i ndi ctm entonl yr equi r es r ever s al w hen i t s defe ct s “conc eal the s peci fi c cha r ges , pr event t he j ur yfr om deci di ng gui l tori nnocenc e w i t h r es pectt o a part i cul aroffe ns e, expl oi tt he10

r i s k of pr ej udi ci al evi dent i aryrul i ngs , orendange rfai rs ent enci ng. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H addy , 1 3 4 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). B e c a u se D e telic h h a s f a iled to d e m o n stra te t hatanyal l eged e r r ori n t he i ndi ctm entw as pr ej udi ci al , w e nee d notdeci de w hethert he i nd i ct m ent w as dup l i ci t ou s. D et el i ch cont ends t hathe i s pr ej udi ced bythe i ncl us i on i n C ount1 of the ind ict m en t of

a v arietyo f a ll eg ed co n d u ct i n su p p o rto f th e sc h em e to d ef rau d H igh m ark – s peci fi cal l yt he r efe r ence s t o fee - s pl i t t i ng and upcodi ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed att he end of the G overnm ent ’ s cas e- i n- chi ef thatthe G overnm enthad fa i l ed t o pr oduce e nough e v id e n c e o f

u p c o d in g w ith in th e lim itatio n s p e rio d a n d th a t f e e -sp littin g w a s n o t it se lf cr i m i nal conductabs entpr oof of a n under l y i ng fr aud. T hus , D et el i ch ar gues that evi dence i nt r oduced i n s uppor tof the l at er - excl uded fe e- s pl i t t i ng and upcodi ng theor i es of the s cheme t o defr aud nec es s ar i l ys pi l l ed overi nt o t he j ury ’ s gui l t yver di ctforbi l l i ng H i ghm ark fors ervi ces notr ender ed. W e di s agr ee. W i t houtdeci di ng w hetherthe addi t i onal theor i es coul d have be en pr ej udi ci al , w e bel i eve thatanyal l eged pr ej udi ce t o D et el i ch w oul d have be en cur ed by th e D istric t C o u rt’s in stru c tio n s to th e ju ry , w h ich c lea rlylim ited C o u n t 1 to a sc h e m e to d e f ra u d H ig h m a rk b ys u b m ittin g f ra u d u le n t c la im s f

o r s e rv ic e s n o t r e n d e re d . See U ni t ed Stat es v. P un gitore , 910 F. 2d 1084, 1136 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( hol di ng j uryi ns t ruct i ons cur ed a d u p licito u s in d ictm e n t w h e re th e y“ su f f icie n tlyin f

o rm e d th e ju ryo f

its o b lig a tio n to del i vera unani m ous ver di ctas t o a part i cul artheory ”) . T he j uryw as i ns t ruct ed:11

T h e d e f e n d a n t is c h a rg e d w ith a sc h e m e to d e f ra u d a h e a lth c a re b e n e f it pr ogr am, t hati s , H i ghm ark, underC ount1 of the i ndi ctm ent . T he governm ental l eges t hatt he s cheme i nvol ved the fr audul ents ubm i s s i on of cl ai m s t o H i gh m ark for services w hich w ere notrendered. Y ou m ust u n a n im o u slya g re e th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s p ro v e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t an e x ec u ti o n o r att em p ted e x ec u ti o n o f th e a ll eg ed sch em e b ef o re r etur ni ng a ver di ctof gui l t yas t o C ount1. I f y ou cannotunani m ous l yagr ee as t o w hi ch exe cut i on orat t empt ed exe cut i on the def endantcomm i t t ed or par t i ci pat ed i n fur t her i ng t he s cheme, then y ou m us tr eturn a ver di ctof not gui l t yw i t h r es pectt o C ount1. ( A pp. 1103. ) T he j ur yw as al s o i ns truct ed thati tcoul d notconvi cton t he bas i s of evi dence of upcodi ng ( A pp. 1114) , thatfee - s pl i tt i ng w as noti ndepende nt l ycr i m i nal conduct( A pp. 1100) , and thatC ount2 form ai l fr aud r equi r ed the j uryt o fi r s tfi nd “that th e g o v e rn m e n t [ h a d ] p ro v e [ d ] b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th e e x iste n c e o f a sc h e m e to d e f ra u d .” (A p p . 1 1 0 5 .) W e p re s u m e th a t ju ri e s u n d e rs ta n d a n d c a re f u lly f o llo w in s tru c tio n s . P un gitore , 910 F. 2d at1136 ( ci t i ng Fra n c is v . Fra n k lin , 471 U . S. 307, 324 n. 9 ( 1985) ) . T he i ns t ruct i ons as gi ven byt he D i s t r i ctC our tcl ear l yr equi r ed the j uryt o unani m ous l yagr ee th a t D e telic h h a d e n g a g e d in o r a ttem p ted to e n g a g e in a sin g le e x e c u tio n o f a sc h e m e to defr aud H i ghm ark bys ubm i t t i ng a fr audul entbi l l fors ervi ces notr ender ed. T he D i s t r i ct C our tt hus guar ded aga i ns tt he pr i nci pl e evi l of a dupl i ci t ous i ndi ctm ent– the r i s k of a n o n -u n a n im o u s v e rd ict. W e w ill n o t as su m e th a t, be c a u se th e ju ryw a s p re se n ted w ith evi dence of otherconducti n s uppor tof s epar at e al l eged e xecut i ons of the s cheme, i tw as in c a p a b le o f

c o m p a rtm e n taliz in g th a t in f o rm a tio n a n d f

in d in g D e telic h g u iltyo f a sin g le e x e c u tio n a s d ir e c te d . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Lyon , 404 F. 3d 754, 776 ( 3d C i r . 2005)12

( hol di ng i n m ul t i pl e def endantcont extthata j uryi s “ful l ycapa bl e of co m p artm en tal izi n g ” e v iden ce ). W e ther efor e hol d t hat , even i f the i ndi ctm entw er e dupl i ci t ous , the def endantw as n o t p re ju d ice d b ya n ya lleg e d d u p licity , an d w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e f u sa l to strik e th e in d ictm e n t. C. Fi nal l y , D et el i ch cl ai m s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n t w o w ay s byadmi t t i ng t he re c o rd e d c o n v e rsa tio n b e tw e e n h im se lf , D r. P ro p e r, an d B e v e rle e P ro p e r f ro m A p ril, 2002. Fi r s t , D et el i ch ar gues t hatM r s . Pr oper ’ s death i n 2006 r ender s the admi s s i on of her stat em en ts a v iolati o n o f h is co n fro n tat ion ri g h ts un d er C r aw f or d v. W as hi ngt on , 54 1 U. S. 36 ( 2004) . Second, D et el i ch ar gues thatthe conve r s at i on s houl d have be en exc l uded as i rr el evan t . W e dis agree on bo t h p oint s. D et el i ch’ s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e obj ect i on i s r es ol ved byourhol di ng i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Hendr i cks , 395 F. 3d 173 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . I n Hendr i cks w e r ej ect ed the ar gum ent t hats t at ement s m ade byan unava i l abl e conf i dent i al i nform antand admi t t ed vi a r ecor di ng vi ol at ed the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. Fi r s t , w e hel d t hatw her e the s t at ement s w er e not i nt r oduced f

ort he trut h of the mat t eras s ert ed, the admi s s i on pr es ent ed no hea r s ay conce r ns underFed. R . E vi d. 801( a) and C raw f ord . I d. at183. Second, w e hel d t hat“the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e does notbart he i ntr oduct i on of the i nform ant ’ s port i ons of theD e telic h a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in n o t g iv in g a lim iti n g in stru c tio n to 2 e n su re th e ju ryd id n o t co n sid e r M rs. P ro p e r’s sta tem e n t f o r its tru th . H o w e v e r, w e w ill notfi nd pl ai n err ori n t he l ack of a l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on w her e the def endantdi d not re q u e s t s u c h a n in s tru c tio n a t tr ia l. See U ni t ed Stat es v. R i cke

y , 457 F. 2d 1027, 1031 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 7 2 ). A s D e telic h d id n o t se e k a lim iti n g in stru c tio n f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt, h e is n o t en tit led to c laim e rro r o n th is iss u e o n a p p e a l. 13 co n v ersa ti o n as a re rea so n ab lyreq u ir ed to p lace the d ef en d an t or co co n sp ir ator’s nont es t i m oni al s t at ement s i nt o cont ext . ” I d. at184. B oth r easons p erm i tt he ad m i ssi on of M rs . P roper’ s r ecorded st at em ents . M rs . P ro p e r’s sta tem e n t w a s a d m itt e d to p lac e D e telic h ’s s tate m e n t in c o n tex t, an d n o t f o r its t ruth. F urther, D et el i ch’s s t at em ents , un qu est i on ablyadm i ssi ble as partyadm i ssi on s, 2 w er e r es pons es t o a conve r s at i on and ar e ther efor e meani ngl es s w i t houtthe cont extof M r s . Pr oper ’ s s t at ement s . T hus , M r s . Pr oper ’ s s t at ement s ar e admi s s i bl e forthe r eas ons ar t i cul at ed i n Hendr i cks . N ext , D et el i ch ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng the r ecor ded conve r s at i on r el evantunderFed. R . E vi d. 401. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatt he r ecor di ng w as r el evantt o r ebutD et el i ch’ s cl ai m thathe w i t hdr ew fr om the fr audul ent sc h e m e w h e n h e m o v e d to C a lifo rn ia. D istric t C o u rts h a v e g re a t d isc re tio n to a d m it e v id e n c e u n d e r t h e b ro a d d e f in itio n o f re le v a n t e v id e n c e in R u le 4 0 1 . See M oyerv. U ni t ed D om i ni on I

ndus tr i es , I

nc. , 4 7 3 F .3 d 5 3 2 , 5 4 4 -4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e ru le itse lf s t at es t hatanyevi dence t hathas a “t endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of anyfac tthati s ofD et el i ch al s o ar gues i n pas s i ng thatthe r ecor di ng w as unfai r l ypr ej udi ci al under 3 Ru l e 4 0 3 . No a r g u me n ti s ma d e a s t o wh ya d mi t t i n g th e r e c o r d i n g wa s u n f a i ra n d we th e re f o re h a v e n o b a sis o n w h ich to c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n o n th is p o in t. 14 c o n se q u e n c e to th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th e a c tio n m o re p ro b a b le o r le ss p ro b a b le th a n it w oul d be w i t houtt he evi dence ” i s r el evant . Fed. R . E vi d. 401. W e agr ee thatD et el i ch’ s conver s at i on w i t h t he Pr oper s m ade i tl es s l i kel ythat D et el i ch had w i t hdr aw n fr om t he cons pi r acyt o t he ext enti tdemonstr at ed an ongoi ng e f f o rt to c o n c e a l il leg a l ac tiv iti e s. In a d d iti o n , the c o n v e rsa tio n a id e d th e g o v e rn m e n t in im p e a c h in g D e te lic h ’s c o n te n tio n th a t h e w a s u n a w a re o f th e ille g a l b illin g p ra c tic e s . T hus w e ca nnots ayt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s cons i der abl e di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng t hatt he r ecor di ng m ade i tl es s l i kel ythatD et el i ch had w i t hdr aw n fr om the s cheme. 3 B eca us e B ever l ee Pr oper ’ s s t at ementw as r el evantand w as admi s s i bl e under Hendr i cks , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterr ori n admi t t i ng i ti nt o evi dence . I V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m D et el i ch’ s convi ct i on.