Opinion ID: 173199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alternative Arguments

Text: The Schneiders claim the evidence that Dr. Schneider was responsible for the deaths of over twenty patients creates a substantial risk that the passion of the jury will be so inflamed that the jury will be unable to engage in a rational analysis of the evidence. (Appellee's Br. at 27.) We agree presenting evidence of a doctor's responsibility for the deaths of over twenty patients may have a profound effect on the jury, but that is the precise conduct for which the Schneiders are charged. This is not evidence of collateral activity or prior bad acts; the government intends to prove the deaths alleged in Count 5 were the result of an ongoing scheme to distribute drugs for purposes other than legitimate medical treatment. While the evidence is certainly prejudicial, it is not unfairly prejudicial. The Schneiders also claim we can affirm the district court on two other grounds. See S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 745 n. 2 (10th Cir.2005) (An appellee may defend the judgment won below on any ground supported by the record. (quotations and alterations omitted)). First, they argue the evidence relating to the treatment and deaths of the seventeen individuals is not relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b) [7] because its relevance is conditioned on facts which cannot be proved. Second, they claim the indictment is infirm because the seventeen additional deaths alleged in Count 5 are duplicitous. We may affirm on alternative grounds only when those grounds are dispositive, indisputable, and appear clearly in the record. Roberts v. Barreras, 484 F.3d 1236, 1244 (10th Cir.2007) (unable to rule on an alternative ground because the record unclear) (quotations omitted). We reject the Schneiders' argument under Rule 104(b) because, even assuming the Schneiders' reasoning is correct, the record before us is insufficient to indisputably determine the issue. Accordingly, we decline to affirm on this alternative ground. The Schneiders claim the court's ruling may also be affirmed because Count 5 is duplicitous by charging the Schneiders with eighteen distinct violations of the statute in one count. [8] Multiple charges in one count may present a danger that the jury may convict a defendant although not reaching a unanimous agreement on precisely which charge is the basis for the conviction. Jaynes, 75 F.3d at 1503 n. 7. As discussed above, however, we have permitted one count in an indictment to contain multiple charges that may otherwise be separate counts if the alleged violations were all part of a single scheme. Id. at 1502. The Schneiders do not argue the separate deaths could not be part of one scheme and we are not persuaded by the Schneiders' argument that, due to the complexity of this case, a specific unanimity instruction cannot be relied upon to cure potential jury confusion. See id. at 1503 n. 7; see also United States v. Sasser, 971 F.2d 470, 478 (10th Cir.1992). [9]