Opinion ID: 6330205
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Fairness of Hofstetter’s Trial

Text: Hofstetter alleges that the government violated her constitutional right to a fair trial for three reasons: (1) the government destroyed patient files seized during the 2010 investigation of the Hollywood clinic; (2) the government breached its Brady obligations by failing to disclose information about a criminal investigation of Walmart; and (3) the government committed prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments by making comments that impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to Hofstetter. We consider each argument in turn.
We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Cody, 498 F.3d 582, 586 (6th Cir. 2007). When the district court’s conclusion is based on spoliation, “[t]he district court’s factual determinations giving rise to the spoliation finding are reviewed for clear error.” Byrd v. Alpha Alliance Ins. Corp., 518 F. App’x 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Adkins v. Wolever, 692 F.3d 499, 506 (6th Cir. 2012)). “The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the court below . . . .” United States v. Garrido, 467 F.3d 971, 977 (6th Cir. 2006). In December 2010, the DEA seized about 1,900 patient files at the Hollywood clinic pursuant to a search warrant. The warrant and seizure followed a year-long investigation of the clinic, which was precipitated by signs of the clinic’s illegal practices and included undercover agents who posed as patients. After the seizure, the DEA reviewed the files pertaining to the undercover officers but did not review other patient files. Ultimately, the case was not prosecuted due to an overwhelming caseload at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Pursuant to a Florida medical board requirement, the DEA destroyed the patient files after five years. Nos. 20-6245/6426/6427/6428 United States v. Hofstetter, et al. Page 31 Meanwhile, the FBI’s investigation into the Tennessee clinics was underway. A detective involved in the FBI investigation became aware of the DEA’s 2010 Hollywood clinic investigation and reached out to the DEA to obtain the files in late 2015. The FBI detective and the DEA agent discussed transferring the 2010 Hollywood files to the FBI, but the DEA agent never did so. The agent stopped responding to the FBI detective’s inquiries about the files, first because of her involvement with an out-of-state murder investigation, and then because of the unexpected death of her husband. The agent then left the DEA without telling the detective, and the DEA agent who inherited the case destroyed the files according to Florida law. Hofstetter sought to suppress all evidence of the treatment of patients at the Hollywood clinic associated with the patients’ files that were seized by the DEA. Alternatively, Hofstetter asked the district court to instruct the jury that the files would have been exculpatory for her and unfavorable to the government. A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing and recommended denying the motion, and the district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation. Later, Hofstetter asked the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal or grant a new trial based on spoliation, which the district court also denied. On appeal, Hofstetter once again argues that her due process rights were violated due to spoliation. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires criminal prosecutions to “comport with prevailing notions of fundamental fairness.” California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984). Fairness requires “that criminal defendants be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” Id. For this reason, the prosecution must deliver “exculpatory evidence into the hands of the accused[.]” Id. Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), a defendant’s due process rights are violated when material exculpatory evidence is suppressed, regardless of whether the suppression results from good or bad faith. United States v. Jobson, 102 F.3d 214, 218 (6th Cir. 1996). But when the government “fails to preserve evidence whose exculpatory value is indeterminate and only ‘potentially useful’ to [a] defendant, we apply a different test.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). Potentially useful evidence is that “of which no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have exonerated the defendant.” Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57 (1988) (emphasis added). In this scenario, a defendant must establish three elements: (1) that the Nos. 20-6245/6426/6427/6428 United States v. Hofstetter, et al. Page 32 government acted in bad faith when it failed to preserve the evidence; (2) that the exculpatory value of the evidence was apparent before it was destroyed; and (3) that the defendant would not be able to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means. Jobson, 102 F.3d at 218 (citing Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 57–58). Here, the Hollywood clinic patient files were never reviewed, so there was no evidence that they were materially exculpatory. Because the files were only potentially useful, we proceed to the Youngblood test. The first two elements are inter-related because the “presence or absence of bad faith by the [government] for purposes of the Due Process Clause must necessarily turn on the [government’s] knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence at the time it was lost or destroyed.” Id. (quoting Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 56–57 n.). To establish bad faith, Hofstetter must show “official animus” or a “conscious effort to suppress exculpatory evidence.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). But neither the DEA nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office reviewed the content of the files before they were destroyed, and there is no evidence that the government suspected the files were exculpatory. Furthermore, the files were destroyed as part of a standard, state-mandated file closure process, so there is no suggestion of animus. Hofstetter also had other reasonable means to obtain comparable evidence after the 2010 Hollywood files were destroyed. She had access to substantively similar patient files from the Hollywood clinic for the time period of December 2010 to December 2015, and she could have used them to argue that the patients at the Hollywood clinics received legitimate prescriptions for controlled substances. See Kordenbrock v. Scroggy, 919 F.2d 1091, 1103 (6th Cir. 1990) (en banc). Hofstetter has not established any of the Youngblood elements, nor has she shown any error in the factual findings of the district court. The district court was therefore correct in declining to acquit Hofstetter or grant a new trial based on spoliation.
“We review denials of a motion for a new trial based on Brady violations for abuse of discretion, but assess the existence of a Brady violation de novo.” United States v. Fields, 763