Opinion ID: 435908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: legitimate medical purpose

Text: 26 Appellants were charged in the indictment with knowingly and intentionally distributing or dispensing a controlled substance not in the usual course of professional practice and not for legitimate medical purpose in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) (1980). This section provides in part that: 27 Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to ... distribute or dispense, a controlled substance ... 28 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). 29 The phrase except as authorized by this subchapter indicates that this law has certain exceptions. One of these is a limited exemption for doctors. 30 In order to lawfully possess or dispense a controlled substance a doctor must fulfill two requirements. He must be lawfully licensed to practice medicine and he must be registered by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Doctors that are registered are then authorized to possess, distribute or dispense controlled substances. However, they may do so only in the usual course of professional practice and for a legitimate medical purpose. 7 To assist the jury in establishing the usual course of professional practice and a legitimate medical purpose the government called two medical doctors to the stand. Appellants now urge that the district court erred in not excluding the doctors' testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 8 since its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. We disagree. 31 Rule 403 permits a trial court to exclude otherwise admissible evidence because the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. But Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly since it permits the trial court to exclude concededly probative evidence. United States v. King, 713 F.2d 627, 631 (11th Cir.1983). In criminal trials relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial. The rule permits exclusion only when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value. United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 633 (5th Cir.1982) (Unit B). 9 32 The jury was told that the government had to prove that ... the defendants distributed or dispensed a controlled substance ... that they acted knowingly and intentionally, and ... that they did so other than for a legitimate medical purpose and in the usual course of their professional practice. R.Vol. 2 at 342. To reach its decision the jury needed medical testimony as to what the drug is, how it is properly used, how it can be abused and the medical profession's view of the drug. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion, United States v. Cole, 670 F.2d 35, 36 (5th Cir.1982) (Unit B), in admitting the testimony of Dr. Wright and Dr. Morgan to help the jury establish the standard of medical practice.