Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ATLANTA DIVISION
I. The Indictment
1
The other named defendant, Troy Sobert, pleaded guilty.
1
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 2 of 14
drugs while held for sale after shipment into interstate commerce,
2
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 3 of 14
advice of counsel.
model. The Court need not waste its time with this morass at
2
Raising an advice of counsel defense waives the
attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., United States v.
Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1292 (2d Cir. 1991)(cannot use
attorney-client privilege as both a shield and a sword); United
States v. Burger, 773 F. Supp. 1419, 1429 (D. Kan. 1991)(waiver
in context of pretrial discovery); United States v. Mierzwicki,
500 F. Supp. 1331, 1334 (D. Md. 1980) (fairness demands treating
the defense as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege).
3
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 4 of 14
SEC, 859 F.2d 1429, 1436 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Carr,
740 F.2d 339, 347 (5th Cir. 1984). As discussed further below, good
II. Argument
to their erroneous belief that their conduct was legal because the
4
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 5 of 14
they were “in fact performing an act, whether or not [they knew]
Lynch, 233 F.3d 1139, 1141 (9th Cir. 2000). See also United States
the Indictment are not crimes in which the defendants’ good faith
the charged conduct. See Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 193
facts that constitute the offense); United States v. Cain, 130 F.3d
in cocaine case that government need not prove defendant knew his
not a defense that defendants lacked the intent to violate the law.
5
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 6 of 14
F.3d 381, 384 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court properly gave
that government need not prove the defendant knew his conduct was
illegal).
F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 1973). The reason for this is that the
6
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 7 of 14
States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 1984). Thus, good faith
intent.
intent. In United States v. Dohan, 508 F.3d 989 (11th Cir. 2007),
Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 856 (11th Cir. 2006) (“knowingly and
3
In Dohan, the Eleventh Circuit explicitly rejected the
Pattern Jury Instruction and held “Pattern Jury Instruction 70.5
[Money Laundering Conspiracy] places a higher burden on the
government for proving an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) than
does the statute, and should not be used.” 508 F.3d at 993
(emphasis added).
7
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 8 of 14
371), that a defendant does not need to know his conduct violates
States.” The Supreme Court held in United States v. Feola, 420 U.S.
Id. at 687. The drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the
Feola applies here. See also United States v. Ansaldi, 372 F.3d
8
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 9 of 14
charge under RICO and the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act that
in fact performing an act, whether or not he knows that the act has
1139, 1141 (9th Cir. 2000). Even if Stoufflet could meet all of
9
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 10 of 14
he is charged.4
Fifty-One with misbranding drugs while held for sale after shipment
109 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994), the defendant was convicted of introducing
the legality his actions. The Eleventh Circuit in Walker held that
4
The advice of counsel defense, however, may be raised as a
defense to the substantive money laundering charges, Counts 6
through 48, as money laundering is a specific intent crime. Thus,
evidence that defendant Stoufflet sought and obtained advice from
attorneys as to the legality of the internet on-line prescription
business is potentially relevant to a defense to the money
laundering offenses with which he is charged in Counts 6 through
48, provided the advice was obtained prior to the alleged date on
which the specific financial transactions occurred and that it is
relevant to those charges. However, only defendant Stoufflet
remains as to these counts. Accordingly, such evidence is
arguably relevant not to the defendant-doctors, but only as to
defendant Stoufflet, and only as to charges of substantive money
laundering.
10
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 11 of 14
D. Pre-Trial Ruling
as a matter law.
substantially shorten the trial so that the jury could focus on the
11
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 12 of 14
presentation of evidence.
such defenses under Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
12
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 13 of 14
III. Conclusion
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID E. NAHMIAS
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/S/RANDY S. CHARTASH
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Georgia Bar No. 121760
/S/LAWRENCE R. SOMMERFELD
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Georgia Bar No. 666936
13
Case 1:06-cr-00337-CC-JFK Document 217 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 14 of 14
type.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
/S/RANDY S. CHARTASH
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
14