Opinion ID: 319817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Immediately.

Text: THE COURT: What did you say? THE WITNESS: Immediately. I wouldn't go for any length of time without any proper care. THE COURT: Well, what length of time normally, as an expert, would you say that braces would be on? I mean, if you can answer the question. If you can't, why, say so. How long would braces normally be on before you would conclude that that was not the proper approach and you would take the braces off for these muscle exercises, and so forth? How long would you leave them on there before you would make that conclusion? THE WITNESS: It is really very difficult to say, your Honor. I could think of few hypothetical situations I have had in my case load, certain younger individuals who have what we call a tongue thrusting, a thumb sucking problem that causes anterior open bites. These are usually in the formative years that we can actually train the tongue, that we can train the muscles to help with our treatment. Generally speaking-- BY MR. SOMERS: Q. Doctor, isn't this also-- THE COURT: Wait a minute. Let him finish. You haven't answered by question yet. Maybe you can't. THE WITNESS: I really can't. It is really very difficult for me. THE COURT: Would it be a matter of two or three months? THE WITNESS: It could be. THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. BY MR. SOMERS: Q. Doctor, isn't it true that considerable amount of progress has been made with certain types of muscle therapy for certain types of problems in a short period of time, such as a couple of months? A. Well, you're right, there are certain cases that could be helped with some type of myo-therapy. Q. Then in some of these cases they may involve the taking off of braces, is that correct, that have been put on? A. Well, let me say that in most instances we do these things before we put the braces on. Q. When you say 'we' who are you referring to? A. Orthodontists. Q. Not necessarily dentists? A. Not necessarily. Q. Pardon? A. Not necessarily. Q. Continue, please. A. I think I answered what you were asking me 4 18 U.S.C. 1001 provides: Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. 1 These were included as necessary elements of the offense in an instruction requested by the government and given by the district court. The government, as it must, acknowledges in its brief on appeal and its petition for rehearing that proof of these elements was necessary to sustain the conviction 2 I ignore testimony favorable to Deep that was consistent with his efforts to receive continuing treatment because we must view the record in the light most favorable to the government 3 The record in Deep's case is clear that he needed orthodontic treatment and that such treatment had been commenced. One of the government's experts testified that removal of orthodontic bands for various periods of time up to two or three months was a part of some kinds of full orthodontic treatment and that removal for shorter times was a regular part of orthodontic treatment. While the majority opinion correctly maintains that the jury was not required to find that Deep's treatment was of this type, it seems improper to allow the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not unless there was some evidence suggesting that it was not. There was no such evidence. These factors and their effect on what the jury could reasonably find with regard to Deep's knowledge about the status of his treatment distinguish this case from United States v. Ayala (9th Cir. 1972) 465 F.2d 464 4 If, of course, Deep was not disobeying his dentist when the removed his bands, it would be even more obviously impermissible for the jury to infer that he knew that active orthodontic treatment had ceased 5 Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that 'the court on motion of a defendant or of its own motion shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment or information after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.' As for the general standard for determining sufficiency of the evidence, see generally 8 J. Moore, Federal Practice P29.06 at 29-18 to 29-26 6 The notification that Deep no longer had orthodontic appliances attached indicated a change in physical condition that would have required reevaluation of Deep's classification, and that, under the regulations, would doubtless have required termination of his disqualification for induction (he had ceased to be an '(individual) with orthodontic appliances attached . . ..'). Even if Deep may have desired the alleged misrepresentation to prevent reexamination of his classification, it could not have done so. The local board's actions were required to be the same, regardless of the reason for removal of the braces