Opinion ID: 627222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Baranwal

Text: During its case in chief, the government called Timothy Heider, a former reporter of the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, as a witness. On direct examination, Heider testified that in August 2004, he was working on a story on Internet pharmacies when he placed an order on the Internet for a drug called Didrex. He testified that the website on which he placed the order asked several questions, but that he did not provide a prescription for that drug. Heider said he received a bottle of the drug with Baranwal's name on the label. He also testified that he later contacted Baranwal, telling him that I received a prescription drug, his name was on the label, and I asked him why. Heider said that Baranwal denied that he issued the drugs and didn't know how his name ended up on the label, how he got the drugs. On cross-examination by Baranwal's counsel, Heider testified that he wrote two stories on the subject of Internet pharmacies. He stated that [o]ne story was about an Internet drug operation that had started in Ohio and migrated to Florida, but that story involved websites that were different than the one dealing with Dr. Baranwal. He did not describe the other story. On cross-examination by LaCour, Heider again identified his first story as involving the Internet operation that started in Ohio and [then] migrated to Florida. Again, at that stage of his testimony, he did not elaborate on any other stories that he wrote or published. During the government's rebuttal argument, it made the statement: The reason why Akhil Baranwal left [Jive Network] on November 1, 2004, is because he had been outed by an investigative reporter who told you that he wrote a big article about this, and Dr. Baranwal was front and center in that article because he, this investigative reporter, got a prescription that had Akhil Baranwal's name on it. The government's argument drew an objection from Baranwal. The District Court stated: Well, the reporter testified about it. The jury can recall his testimony as an investigative reporter and the work that he did on that context, and take that into consideration. After the jury retired to deliberate, Baranwal asked the District Court to instruct the jury to disregard the government's argument about the article. The Court took the motion under consideration. The following morning, the District Court spoke to the parties about this issue. The District Court expressed concern that the government's argument did not reflect Heider's testimony. Baranwal requested that the District Court instruct the jury to disregard the argument of government counsel. In response, the government argued that the District Court had previously instructed the jury not to consider argument by counsel as evidence. The District Court denied Baranwal's requested instruction. We agree with Baranwal that the government argued facts that were not in evidence when it stated that Heider wrote a big article in which Baranwal was front and center and that this outed him. However, Baranwal has not carried his burden of showing that this prejudiced him. According to Baranwal, the government's argument was prejudicial to him because it goes to the heart of [his] defense that he believed in good faith his actions . . . were in keeping with professional practice. This argument again ignores the fact that the standard by which the jury was required to determine whether Baranwal was acting in the usual course of professional practice is an objective one. With respect to the substantive countsthe only counts of which he was convictedhis subjective good faith did not matter. In light of this, and given that Baranwal has not otherwise explained how the government's argument prejudiced him, we reject Baranwal's suggestion that his convictions be reversed.