Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
v STOUFFLET
CASE 1:08‐CR‐00082
CONTRADICTIONS
“Rather, the applicability of § 1306.04 to the present case shows that There was no notice, no warning issued at any time. This was
the Defendants were put on notice that their activities were illegal confirmed by the DEA in June 2008 during Hearing before Congress to
through not only the statute and the case law interpreting it, but also enact new legislation. The new legislation amended the Controlled
by a specific regulatory provision.” Substance Act” the very provision Stoufflet is charged of violating.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“Finding examples of such “specific facts” is not difficult, further 06/24/2008 (RANNAZZISI, DEA DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR)
undercutting the Defendants’ argument that the standard is The DEA stated before Congress reasons for the passing the
too vague to follow or provided insufficient notice.” new law: “That's very important; puts everybody on notice
[Doc 149 03/14/2007] that this is what is expected.”
“Because the Defendants cannot meaningfully distinguish their For 2 years, the government maintained that the doctors activities and
conduct from that of doctors and businesses convicted under the CSA Stoufflet were of the same and conspired together; punishable as a
in office or "brick‐and‐mortar" settings, they focus on the technological felony offenses. After having much trouble obtaining a conviction in
medium they used to violate the Act. This distinction makes no the case against Stoufflet co‐defendant, Dr. Smith, the government
difference, however, because the Internet did not change the recast the doctor’s conduct of a misdemeanor nature but maintain
substance of Defendants' pill mill activity, but merely made it more Stoufflet’s conduct is of a felony nature.
ubiquitous.” [August 2008]
[Document 149 03/14/2007]
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ In addition, the fact that Stoufflet is charged for “aiding and abetting”
“United States Attorney David E. Nahmias said of the case, “These the doctors presents more problematic issues.
defendants, particularly the doctors charged, allegedly chose Internet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Page 1 of 7
U.S. v STOUFFLET
CASE 1:08‐CR‐00082
profits over legal and ethical medical practices.” MARCH 4 2008: GUILTY PLEA PROCEEDINGS STOUFFLET’S ATTORNEY
[08/10/2006: USDOJ PRESS RELEASE] ED GARLAND STATED IN FEDERAL COURT:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ “That is, he is guilty if he aided in or agreed with people to
“In fact, there is little, if any, factual dispute as to the eScipts business have these drugs sold over the Internet by doctors doing these
model and as to the part each defendant played in the distribution prescriptions.”
and/or dispensing of controlled substances”. [Doc 12 Page 29 ]
(Doc 217 02/28/2008 Page 11) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Stoufflet is incapable of causing the “controlled substances” to be
“Put simply, the Indictment alleges that the Defendants each were distributed or dispensed. Licensed doctors issued prescriptions that
part of a scheme to circumvent the drug laws of the United States, were forwarded to licensed pharmacies for fulfillment and distribution.
enabling customers to order controlled
substances and other prescription drugs without a legitimate medical
purpose and outside of the usual course of professional practice.”
Moreover, the Defendants' activities were well within the limits of the
CSA.
“Defendants' conduct in selling controlled substances to customers
with no consultation, no examination, no follow‐up, and by allowing
customers to request the type, quantity, and strength of pills,
fell within the prohibition of the Controlled Substances Act.”
“The central determination – whether the Defendants’
conduct indeed went beyond the usual course of medical practice –
is a factual issue for the jury to decide, not something the Justice
Department has unilaterally declared.”
“The Defendants motive and interest in circumventing the drug laws,
as well as their actions in furtherance of the conspiracy are not
irrelevant nor unfairly prejudicial. “
[Document 149 03/14/2007]
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“On or about the dates listed below, in the Northern District of Georgia
and elsewhere, CHRISTOPHER STOUFFLET (Counts 2‐4), TROY SOBERT
(Counts 2‐4), VLADIMIR ANDRIES, M.D. (Count 3), and ANDRE D.
SMITH, M.D. (Counts 2 and 4),defendants herein, aided and abetted by
Page 2 of 7
U.S. v STOUFFLET
CASE 1:08‐CR‐00082
each other and by others known and unknown to the Grand Jury,
knowingly and intentionally, distributed and dispensed, and caused to
be distributed and dispensed, a quantity of a controlled substance for
other than a legitimate medical purpose and not in the usual course of
professional practice, as charged in the chart below, each such
instance being a separate count of the Indictment:”
(Doc. 1 08/08/2006)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“With or without § 1306.04, the Defendants can be held liable under
the CSA for activities that amount to conduct beyond the bounds of
professional medical practice, or for aiding and abetting those
activities.”
[Doc 149 03/14/2007]
“However, “[t]hat Congress has considered clearer legislation . . . does JOSEPH RANNAZZISI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE
not mean that existing laws do not apply. . .” United States v. OF DIVERSION CONTROL, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Quinones, 536 F.Supp.2d 267, 273 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). “[S]tatutes are (June 24, 2008)
considered by the courts with reference to the circumstances existing
at the time of the passage. The interpretation placed upon an existing “that the current laws were adopted in the 70’s & 80’s, without
statute by a subsequent group of Congressmen who are promoting the internet in mind, so rules, regs and laws for “online
legislation and who are unsuccessful [or successful] has no persuasive pharmacies” need to be clearly defined.”
significance here.” United States v. Wise, 370 U.S. 405, 411 (1962). The
fact that the Congress has passed a bill which would amend the “The current laws used to police and web, are ambiguous and
Controlled Substance Act (CSA) to more explicitly prohibit the conduct ineffective, so even lawmakers are demanding clarity.”
at issue in this case does not invalidate prosecutions under the
then‐existing provisions of the CSA nor does it render the plea “Under current law, however, these Internet facilitation centers
involuntary.” are not required to register with DEA. And the Controlled
[Doc 149 03/14/2007] Substances Act did not take into account the technological
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ advances that have taken place since the CSA was established”
“The Defendants raise the following major contentions:
First, they claim that, despite longstanding precedent, the
criminal standards are somehow so vague as to rise to a
constitutional due process violation;”
Page 3 of 7
U.S. v STOUFFLET
CASE 1:08‐CR‐00082
09/11/2009: HEARING TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA 02/28/2008: The government filed Governments Motion in Limine to
Exclude “Advice of Counsel,”
MR. CHARTASH: “Well, you know, your honor, it may be a
little bit far afield but there's lots of accusations that Mr.
Stoufflet made regarding the Government that we find
outrageous. “
“And it's relevant in this extent: Mr. Stoufflet has made lots of
comments about lots of the law. Lots of it is just wrong and he
just doesn't know or appreciate it and this is yet another
example of that that he just doesn't know, that's why the
advice of his counsel is so important.”
“The government urged counsel for defendant Stoufflet to formally The government declared throughout the proceedings that it was
declare whether or not it would raise the defense so that the issue necessary that Stoufflet provide the government sufficient notice on
could be fully assessed by the government to determine whether it issues and his positions in the case.
provides a valid legal defense to the charges, and so the United States
could adequately prepare for trial.” Yet, exactly what the government repeatedly stated would cause
[Doc 183 Page 2‐3] (07/11/2007) “substantial problems of fairness and efficiency” is what they did to
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Stoufflet in their exclusion of his “case in chief” “advice‐of‐counsel”
“If an advice‐of‐counsel defense is first asserted at trial, defense, 10 days before trial, in addition to the 72‐hour deadline to
thus waiving defendant’s attorney‐client privilege,1 the government plead guilty.
will then be in the difficult and unfair position of being forced to
respond in the middle of the trial to a large quantity of new
information.”
[Doc 183 Page 3] (07/11/2007)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“Defendant Stoufflet should not be permitted to mount trial by
ambush, raising an advice‐of‐counsel defense in the midst of trial thus
effectively preclude the United States from fully investigating this
avenue of defense and responding appropriately.”
[Doc 183 Page 4] (07/11/2007)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“The three enumerated defenses as to which notice must be given
under the rules share a basic characteristic with advice‐of‐counsel:
they are ordinarily fact‐intensive defenses that are likely to create
substantial problems of fairness and efficiency if raised for the first
Page 4 of 7
U.S. v STOUFFLET
CASE 1:08‐CR‐00082
time during the trial.”
[Doc 183 Page 5] (07/11/2007)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“On the eve of trial it is no longer a viable defense strategy
to be coy about whether to formally rely upon advice‐of‐counsel as a
defense. The time is late to raise advice of counsel and allow the
government adequate time to prepare for trial.”
[Doc 183 Page 6‐7] (07/11/2007)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“Accordingly, defendant Stoufflet should be required to provide notice
to the government on whether he is going to rely on advice‐of‐counsel.
If he is unwilling to so notify the government, then he should be
precluded from raising such a defense at trial, and, specifically, from
inquiring of any witness, and making any argument, about advice or
conduct undertaken as a result of advice of counsel.”
[Doc 183 Page 7] (07/11/2007)
“Had Congress believed at any time in the nearly 30 years since the Congress did intervene and enact a new legislation, amending the CSA
Supreme Court decided Moore that the Supreme Court’s in October 2008, which became effective in June of 2009. (amended
interpretation was incorrect, it could have amended the CSA or the very provisions Stoufflet is charged of violating)
demanded additional regulations be promulgated as it did with regard
to the treatment of narcotics addicts.”
[Doc 149] [03/14/2007]
“Contrary to Defendant’s insinuations, the United States was Considering the “fundamental fairness” in the proceedings, the
unaware when the Court might rule on the government’s motion, government sets a deadline to plead guilty but fail to disclose the
whether prior to the plea deadline or even prior to convening trial.” details that of the deadline that unfairly prejudice Stoufflet
(Footenote 5 Doc 19 03/20/2009 Page 23) Deadline details:
¾ A deadline of 72 hours to plead guilty
¾ At the same time the government has moved to excluded Stoufflet
“cases‐in‐chief” defense (governments Motion to “exclude Advice‐
of‐Counsel” defense – Doc. 217)
¾ 10 days prior to trial
¾ On Friday, (February 29th 2008) he is informed he has until
Monday, (March 3rd 2008) to plead guilty
If the government had intension in being fair and obtaining a
Page 5 of 7
U.S. v STOUFFLET
CASE 1:08‐CR‐00082
voluntarily guilty plea, they would have waited the Courts ruling on
their Motion that excluded Stoufflet “case‐in‐chief” defense. Rather,
the government set the deadline the day after barring Stoufflet from
his defense, knowing there was little if any chance the Judge would
rule over the weekend.
“Despite Defendant’s assumption that the Court ruled in his favor, the The government admits and acknowledges the Court’s Order, ruling
Court’s Order does not support Defendant’s claim. The Court’s ruling, that the crimes are “specific intent” crimes:
which was solely with regard to a doctor‐defendant’s “good faith”
defense, affirms that the Controlled Substance Act violations require “The position is consistent with this Court’s ruling on March
an “intent to distribute”. 07, 2008. This Court denied the Government’s Motion In
(Doc 25 05/19/2009 Page 7) Limine and held, citing United States v. Cameron, 907 F.2d
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1051 (1990), that the specific intent that is at issue in this case
Defendant misconstrues this Court’s ruling, jumping to the conclusion is the specific intent to distribute controlled substances.”
that because government must prove intent to distribute, his advice of (Doc 274 08/19/2008 Page 9)
counsel defense would be relevant to the drug charges against him.
(Doc 19 F 03/20/2009 Page 26)
Page 6 of 7
U.S. v STOUFFLET
CASE 1:08‐CR‐00082
Page 7 of 7