Opinion ID: 531175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Alleged Violation of a Discovery Order

Text: 19 Although the defendant did not testify at trial, he did put on two defense witnesses. One of these witnesses, defendant's son Howard, testified that Neil Tubben told both Howard and the defendant that Dr. Lee's prescriptions were legitimate. Although Tubben appears to have been involved in this whole affair, he was neither indicted nor called as a witness in the government's case in chief. The government did call Tubben as its only rebuttal witness. Tubben testified that he was defendant Brickner's partner in both Franklin Pharmacy and Neuhoff Drugs. Tubben stated that he was aware that both stores filled an unusual number of prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances, most frequently written by Dr. Lee. He further testified that he had discussed with Sidney Brickner and Brickner's son Neil that there was no medical purpose for the prescriptions, but that defendant told him to fill them as long as Dr. Lee had a valid medical license and verified that she wrote the prescriptions. Tubben testified that defendant threatened him with economic sanctions unless he continued to fill Dr. Lee's prescriptions. In support of this latter allegation, the government offered Exhibit 148, a note written by Brickner to Tubben. 5 Brickner's counsel sought a voir dire solely to question Tubben on the authenticity of the note; i.e., could Tubben establish that Brickner actually wrote the note. After voir dire, the court overruled defendant's authenticity objection. The note was then read by Tubben to the jury, but was not published to the jury. No objections were made. 20 During cross-examination of Tubben, inquiry was made as to when Tubben first made the government aware he had this note. Tubben indicated he had just given the note to the government attorney within the last week but had mentioned the note to an FBI agent six weeks to two months earlier. On the basis of this response, Brickner's counsel moved for a mistrial, claiming the note should have been turned over to him as part of discovery. Upon being questioned by the court, the assistant United States attorney indicated that she did not learn of the existence of the note until the trial was well underway; that she did not plan to call Tubben or introduce the note in the government's case in chief; and that she called the witness in rebuttal only because of the nature of Brickner's defense. 21 Judge Gilmore took the matter under advisement and ultimately denied the motion for a mistrial. 6 He did strike the exhibit and gave the jury a lengthy cautionary instruction. 22 Although defendant argues at length about discovery abuses and the ineffectiveness of cautionary instructions, we find it unnecessary to discuss these arguments in detail. 23 To begin with, contrary to the defendant's assertion and the trial judge's implications, we find the calling of Tubben and the offering of the note to have been proper rebuttal. The government is not privy to what defense a defendant will offer or rely upon, if any, until it has rested its case. Here, the government had no way of knowing that Brickner, through his son, would attempt to shift blame to Tubben. Although the government had the note a few days before trial and professed negligence in not making it available earlier, it did not, in fact, violate any specific discovery order, nor did it withhold exculpatory material. 7 The court offered defense counsel an adjournment, but this offer was declined. The defense wanted a mistrial or nothing. Given that the note itself clearly was admissible, no prejudice occurred from the jury hearing the note read, notwithstanding the crude language it contained. We can find no discovery abuse which would have merited the granting of a mistrial.