Opinion ID: 612732
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sanctions Proceeding

Text: One day before the inquiry on sanctions, Shaygan moved for an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Hyde Amendment. The district court required the presence of seven witnesses: Tucker, Agent Wells, Agent Brown, Gilbert, Cronin, Hoffman, and defense investigator Graff. All of the witnesses testified except Hoffman. The district court allowed witnesses in the court room only during their own testimony. At the end of the proceeding, the court stated that it had heard sufficiently and did not need to hear from Hoffman. During the proceeding, the government admitted that mistakes had been made in the witness-tampering investigation and in the failure to provide discovery materials to the defense, but the government denied that its legal position had been vexatious or in bad faith. Shaygan conceded that the initiation of the prosecution and the original indictment were not in bad faith, but argued that the prosecution later became frivolous and in bad faith. Shaygan pointed to the filing of the superseding Indictment with a hundred extra counts, the investigation of members of the defense team, and discovery violations. Shaygan conceded that [a]t the end of the day going after the defense lawyers may not be enough under the Hyde Amendment, but then argued that the prosecution was vexatious, frivolous, and in bad faith because of discovery violations. Shaygan argued that, under the Hyde Amendment, [d]iscovery [abuse alone is enough] ... to find bad faith and find a prosecution being frivolous. The government opposed Shaygan's contention that the superseding indictment was used as an instrument of vengeance and argued that the record ... shows that there were legitimate, evidence-based, reviewed, approved, and well-founded strategic reasons to supersede the Indictment to add all those additional patients to secure the admission of what the Government believed to be relevant evidence and to help strengthen the case. The government argued that the superseding indictment had been filed in good faith: There's no improper purpose whatsoever to continuing an investigation when new evidence has been obtained and when time is available to review that and move forward on that and determine if a case should be expanded on, and that was a completely legitimate, evidence-based purpose to go ahead with the superseding Indictment. Cronin testified that he had decided to supersede the indictment because the government had been able to find so many additional witnesses. At the end of the proceeding, Shaygan stated that he was not requesting that the court exercise any inherent powers of contempt as relating to anyone in the United States Attorney's Office, but would defer to the Court on that. After hearing all testimony of witnesses, except Hoffman, and oral argument on whether a sanction under the Hyde Amendment was appropriate, the court allowed additional papers to be filed. The court at no time stated that it was considering sanctions against the individual prosecutors. The government filed a brief after the proceeding in which it acknowledge[d] and deeply regret[ted] that it made serious mistakes in a collateral investigation that was an offshoot of this case. The government agreed to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated with Shaygan's motion to dismiss and for sanctions and the related proceedings. But the government argued that payment of the fees and costs associated with the entire prosecution is not warranted under the Hyde Amendment because the underlying criminal prosecution, as a whole, was not vexatious, frivolous, or pursued in bad faith. The government nonetheless believe[d] that the United States should take responsibility for commencing the witness tampering investigation ... and failing to make the required disclosures, and agreed to pay Shaygan's attorney's fees and costs associated with litigating the motions to dismiss and for sanctions. The district court granted Shaygan's motion under the Hyde Amendment and ordered the United States to reimburse Shaygan in the amount of $601,795.88 for attorney's fees and costs from the date of the superseding indictment. The district court issued a lengthy written order in which it recounted facts about the prosecution and witness tampering investigation, but virtually ignored the substantial evidence that supported the charges against Shaygan. The district court agreed with the government that the original indictment had been filed in good faith, but concluded that AUSA Cronin, with the assistance of AUSA Hoffman, along with DEA Special Agent Christopher Wells, acted vexatiously and in bad faith in prosecuting Dr. Shaygan for events occurring after the original indictment was filed and by knowingly and willfully disobeying the orders of this Court. The district court found that the superseding indictment was filed in bad faith because it was the first manifestation of the `seismic shift' and because [t]he patients that were included in the Superseding Indictment were known to the Government long before the motion to suppress was litigated, yet no Superseding Indictment was sought at an earlier time. The district court found further incidents of bad faith in the witness tampering investigation and discovery violations. The district court reasoned that the Hyde Amendment allows an award of fees and costs for misconduct that occurred after the filing in good faith of the original indictment. The district court quoted the high standard for an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Hyde Amendment, as explained by this Court in Gilbert: A defendant must show that the government's position underlying the prosecution amounts to prosecutorial misconduct  a prosecution brought vexatiously, in bad faith, or so utterly without foundation in law or fact as to be frivolous. 198 F.3d at 1299. The district court then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973), for the proposition that [t]he Hyde Amendment is applicable to conduct by the government during the course of a prosecution taken in bad faith even if the commencement of the prosecution was commenced legitimately. The district court also relied on the decisions of the district courts in United States v. Ranger Electronic Communications, Inc., 22 F.Supp.2d 667 (W.D.Mich.1998), rev'd on other grounds, 210 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2000), and United States v. Troisi, 13 F.Supp.2d 595 (N.D.W.Va.1998), and reasoned that discovery violations in the course of a prosecution can form a basis for the award of attorney's fees under the Hyde Amendment. The district court entered additional sanctions against the prosecutors. The district court entered a public reprimand against the United States Attorney's Office and specifically against AUSA Karen Gilbert, Sean Cronin, and Andrea Hoffman. The district court ordered the United States Attorney's Office to provide the contact information for the relevant disciplinary body of the Bar(s) of which AUSA Cronin and Hoffman are members, and stated that it would request that disciplinary action be taken against Cronin and Hoffman. The district court enjoined the United States Attorney's Office from engaging in future witness tampering investigation[s] of defense lawyers and team members in any ongoing prosecution before [the court] without first bringing such matters to [its] attention in an ex parte proceeding. The court further stated that it reserve[d] to impose any further sanctions and/or disciplinary measures as may be necessary against AUSA Cronin and Hoffman after reviewing the results of [a] Justice Department[] investigation.