Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
-
Upload
chris-stoufflet -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
1/194
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) CRIMINAL NO.
v. ) 1:06-CR-337-CC
CHRISTOPHER STOUFFLET, et al )
Defendants. )
DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER STOUFFLETSRESPONSE TO GOVERNMENTS MOTION IN LIMINE
Defendant Christopher Stoufflet (Stoufflet) urges the court to deny the
Governments Motion in Limine and permit the defendant to introduce relevant evidence
at trial that portrays his state of mind and his efforts to comply with the law during the
period of time that he operated his company. This evidence is relevant to each of the
charges in the indictment and essential to the presentation of the defendants sole defense.
The governments brief summary of the charges in the indictment is accurate: Chris
Stoufflet, along with two partners, operated an Internet company (E-scripts) that
enabled people to seek a doctors prescription for weight loss medicine online. After
reading and signing an informed consent form and accurately filling out a detailed
questionnaire, the patient could submit a request for certain medication (primarily
Schedule III and Schedule IV weight loss medications; at no time were any narcotics, or
sleep aids made available) to a doctor who would review the questionnaire and either
approve or disapprove the request for a prescription, based on the information furnished
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
2/194
2
by the patient (health background, height and weight, blood pressure, other medications
currently being taken). If a prescription was authorized by the doctor, one of numerous
pharmacies owned by entirely independent companies would dispense the prescription
medication to the customer. Various safeguards were installed in Mr. Stoufflets system
to prevent patients from abusing the prescription process, such as preventing requests for
refills too quickly, or using anonymous names in the application process. Mr. Stoufflets
operation was not a fly-by-night company. The company was incorporated and had an
established business location in Atlanta. Dozens of professional employees monitored
the patients requests for prescriptions and maintained sophisticated computer data bases
of the patients. Qualified doctors personally reviewed every online prescription request.
The company paid all the required state and federal taxes. The Internet site always
accurately portrayed the identity of the company.
The essence of this prosecution is simple. The government contends that a doctor
may not prescribe medication based on an online application. This argument is based on
the governments analysis of state regulations or state policies in numerous states
around the country (there is no federal law that prohibits doctors from prescribing
medication based on an internet application). Because (according to the government),
various states consider it improper or inappropriate or not the proper practice of
medicine to write a prescription based on an online application, any sale of
pharmaceutical drugs based on such a prescription is unlawful and whoever
participates in the sale (the doctor, the internet intermediary, the pharmacy, and the
patient, as well) are all engaged in unlawful drug dealing. In short, according to the
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
3/194
3
government, if the doctor and the pharmacist and the internet company do not comply
with various state policies regarding the practice of medicine, they are no different than
any person who sells cocaine or heroin on the street corner. And this is true (according to
the government), even if the doctor or pharmacist or internet company are not even
violating a state criminal law. It is enough, according to the governments theory, that
the defendants violate a state policy.1
Mr. Stoufflet and his partners did everything in their power to ensure that the
company was run in a lawful manner and in accordance with the menagerie of state laws
and regulations that govern the practice of medicine in the fifty states. Indeed, when they
commenced operations in late 2000, it was notthe established law in many states that
internet prescribing of Schedule III and Schedule IV drugs was unlawful. Some states
had informal policies that discouraged this practice, or labeled it inappropriate; some
states had no policy or position on the matter at all; and some states permitted this
practice. Mr. Stoufflet and his partners spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal
fees in an attempt to stay current with evolving state laws.
As detailed below, Mr. Stoufflets company consulted with, and sought advice
from, the DEA and the FDA (and on one occasion wrote directly to the Department of
Justice), as well as scores of state agencies to ascertain the legality of the internet
pharmacy company. In addition, over the course of the three years that the company was
1The Defendant has maintained since the inception of this prosecution that, while conceding thathe committed every act set forth in the indictment, he did not commit a federal offense. In alengthy Motion To Dismiss, the defense explained why the violation of a state policy or stateadministrative regulation may not be transformed into a federal criminal offense (Doc #96).
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
4/194
4
in business, E-scripts retained lawyers from Kilpatrick Stockton; Chorey Taylor & Feil;
Gillen, Parker & Withers; and Arent Fox (the leading health care law firm in the country,
headquartered in Washington, D.C.) to provide legal guidance about the companys
business. An in-house attorney was hired to ensure that at all times the company was
operated in lawful manner. But thats not all: at one point, the practices of the company
came under the close scrutiny of the FDA in Atlanta, and the agent in charge of the
investigation ultimately concluded, under oath, that the company was run in a lawful
manner, a conclusion that he shared with Mr. Stoufflet and the other owners of the
company.
And thats not all: the United States Attorneys Office in the Northern District of
Georgia, through AUSA Sandy Strippoli, also participated in an investigation of the
company (believing, at one point, that certain prescriptions were forged). A search
warrant was executed and the companys computers were temporarily seized. During the
course of that investigation, AUSA Srippoli agreed to return the computers to the
company with the knowledge that E-scripts would continue with its online prescription
business. And thats not all: Magistrate Scofield was also aware how the company
operated and he, too, permitted the company to return to business after the FDA
conducted a search.2
Attached to this response are the following Exhibits which exemplify the evidence
that Mr. Stoufflet intends to introduce at trial in support of his defense that he did
everything possible to remain in compliance with the law; that he lacked the mens rea to
2 Eventually, the company was cleared of any misconduct. There had been no forgeries.
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
5/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
6/194
6
2. In the fall of 2000, as the company was beginning its operations, Dr. Shure,one of the doctors associated with the company, wrote to various state medical
boards inquiring into that states rules regarding internet prescriptions. This is a
sample of one such letter. In response, some states simply stated that there was no
current policy, such as Arkansas and South Carolina, which are attached.
3. On December 20, 2000, Stoufflet wrote to Buddy Parker, former chief drugprosecutor for the United States Attorney Office and asked for Mr. Parkers
guidance on the legality of Stoufflets internet prescription business.
4. On December 28, 2000 Chris Stoufflet wrote to the DEA asking about thelegality of internet prescribing.
5. On January 18, 2001, Chris Stoufflet wrote to a local FDA Agent, PaulSouthern, who had interviewed Chris Stoufflet about his operation. In this letter,
Stoufflet advised Southern about his company and advised him that he had
determined from his survey of the states that most states took no position on the
propriety of internet prescribing of Schedule III and Schedule IV medications.
6. On January 30, 2001, FDA Agent Southern advised Mr. Stoufflet that afterconducting his investigation, he was closing the matter.
7. On April 9, 2001, Chris Stoufflet wrote again to the DEA requesting adviceabout the legality of internet prescribing of weight loss medicine.
8. On July 26, 2001, a search warrant was executed at E-scripts, based on anallegation that one of the doctors prescriptions were forged. In the search warrant
affidavit, Agent Paul Southern expressly stated that [E-scripts] operation
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
7/194
7
appeared to be in compliance with FDA laws and regulations in that a physician
was personally reviewing the questionnaires and personally signing the
prescriptions. (Paragraph 22)
9. A hearing on a Motion to Return the computers that were seized during theJuly 26, 2001 search resulted in a hearing in U.S. District Court at which AUSA
Sandy Strippoli was clearly aware of how the company operated (after all, she had
participated in preparing the search warrant application) and was aware that the
computers were ordered by Magistrate Scofield to be returned. Thus, both AUSA
Strippoli and Magistrate Scofield were aware of the fact that the company was
engaged in online prescriptions and permitted the company to return to business.
10. Shortly thereafter, on August 17, 2001, Mr. Stoufflet continued to retainKilpatrick Stockton and paid a retainer of $500,000 with the understanding that
the company would provide legal advice about the companys operation.
Kilpatrick Stockton designated various health care lawyers and former federal
prosecutor Buddy Parker as primary counsel for Chris Stoufflet and E-scripts.
11. Several months later, Mel Hewitt, a corporate lawyer who had longprovided legal advice to Chris Stoufflet and E-scripts, wrote to Kilpatrick Stockton
on behalf of Mr. Stoufflet to arrange for a lengthy meeting with the lawyers at
Kilpatrick Stockton to review the entire companys operations.
12. On January 15, 2002, Mel Hewitt wrote to Chris Stoufflet reporting to himabout his meeting with the Kilpatrick Stockton lawyers. [Their] position
remains steadfast that although they cannot find anything you are currently
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
8/194
8
doing in the operation of the business to be illegal, that wont guarantee an
overzealous prosecutor wont bring a case against you based on his/her
interpretation of (for example) what constitutes a doctor-patient
relationship, . . .
13. Stoufflet remained determined to have adequate business and health carecounsel and wrote to his principal attorney contact at Kilpatrick Stockton, Craig
Betschi, and asked that Kilpatrick Stockton take a more pro-active perspective
and be available to provide legal advice about the companys operations.
14. On April 2, 2002, Mel Hewitt assured Mr. Stoufflet that he would continueto provide legal advice to the company and would be hiring additional counsel
(Darren Traub) who would be dedicated to the representation of E-scripts.
15. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Stoufflet asked Mr. Hewitt to retain the top healthcare law firm in the country, Arent Fox, in Washington, D.C. and have them focus
on the legality of the business of E-scripts.
16. On behalf of Mr. Stoufflet, Mel Hewitt asked the lawyers at Arent Foxabout the scope of the various state laws that regulated the practice of medicine
and whether those regulations governed the activity of the internet companies. In
a separate letter, Hewitt advised Arent Fox that it would be the go to firm for all
matters related to internet prescribing of medicine.
17. On April 18, 2002 and June 5, 2002, Arent Fox provided two of the manydetailed legal opinions about the companys operation. Though Arent Fox
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
9/194
9
reviewed numerous aspects of the companys business, at no point did Arent Fox
state that internet prescribing was a federal crime.3
18. The following week, Mel Hewitt, still engaged as E-scripts local businesscounsel, outlined in an email to Chris Stoufflet the various projects that he, and the
new dedicated lawyer (Traub) would be reviewing for the company.
19. On the same day, Traub advised Stoufflet that he would ensure that theprincipal lawyer at Arent Fox would be looking into EVERYTHING (emphasis in
original).
20. When the new lawyer, Darren Traub, advised Mr. Stoufflet that Nevadaoutlawed any internet prescriptions, the company immediately ceased doing any
business with customers in Nevada.
21. On July 1, 2002, Darren Traub began as full-time counsel for E-scripts. Heremained as in-house counsel, overseeing virtually every aspect of the companys
legal work, for over a year.
22. On July 6, 2002, Mr. Traub began the process of reviewing various legalaspects of the companys business and demonstrated that he was, in fact, going to
review virtually all aspects of the companys practices.
3 The defense acknowledges, of course, that Arent Fox repeatedly expressed cautionary adviceand warned that state law in this field was rapidly evolving and that a careful consideration of allfifty states laws was necessary. The law firm also noted that it could not guarantee that at somepoint regulatory or enforcement action would not be taken. Nevertheless, at no time did thefirm advise Stoufflet that online prescribing was a federal crime. This is not surprising: No courthad held that online prescribing was a federal crime; and no statute made it a federal crime toissue a prescription based on an internet application.
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
10/194
10
23. On July 11, 2002, Mr. Stoufflet engaged in an email exchange with his in-house financial office, discussing the retainer paid to Gillen, Parker & Withers
(then known as Gillen Cromwell) in the amount of $1,500,000.00. It is
noteworthy that though Gillen, Parker is renowned for its expertise in criminal
defense, there were no pending charges involving E-scripts at this point in time
and the company was actively engaged in the online prescription business. At no
time did Craig Gillen (former director of the Southeast Drug Enforcement Task
Force), Buddy Parker (former chief of the Atlanta federal drug unit of the U.S.
Attorneys Office) or Jerome Froelich (former AUSA and nationally known
criminal defense expert) advise Chris Stoufflet, or any other person at E-scripts,
that its business was unlawful (to say nothing of a federal crime), or that it
should cease its operations.
24. On July 21, 2002, an internal Arent Fox memorandum reveals thecomplication of this area of the law (i.e., online prescriptions). The lawyers
exchanged thoughts about whether the Florida Board of Medicine had adopted a
formal Policy (with a capital P) or just a policy. It was also unclear whether
such a Policy or policy, was equivalent to a regulation.
25. On August 29, Chris Stoufflet wrote to other officials in his companyrequesting that they run things by Jerome Froelich and Arent Fox before making
any decisions.
26. December 17, 2002, Darren Traub wrote to the E-scripts executives,advising them, once again, that he will handle all the companys legal affairs.
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
11/194
11
This sample of the evidence that the defense intends to introduce illustrates the
efforts that Chris Stoufflet took to ensure that his company operated in an entirely legal
manner. There are hundreds of additional letters, emails and records of communications
between Stoufflet and the lawyers further demonstrating the extent to which he
endeavored at all times to conduct his business lawfully.
The governments Motion argues that none of this evidence has any relevance.
The government posits that this entire case can be resolved without a single inquiry into
the extent to which Chris Stoufflet endeavored to assure that his operation was conducted
in an entirely lawful manner, through his contacts with the DEA, the FDA and the money
he spent to retain top-notch lawyers to ensure that his company would comply with all
state and federal laws. The governments motion rests on the improper assumption that
there is no defense regardless if the defendant acted in good faith, in reliance on advice of
counsel, or without any culpable mens rea. The government fails to acknowledge, for
example, that at the time that Chris Stoufflet started E-scripts, not a single federal
prosecution anywhere in the country had been brought for online prescribing against a
company whose business model resembled Stoufflets. According to the government, the
fact that a federal magistrate, an Assistant United States Attorney, an investigating agent
for the FDA, and scores of highly trained attorneys were unaware that it was a federal
crime to prescribe medicine based on an online contact with the patient despite the fact
that virtually nobody was aware that this was a federal crime it is still perfectly
permissible to present this case to a jury by posing the simple question, did he do it, or
didnt he?
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
12/194
12
The governments legal argument is wrong.
In a wide variety of circumstances, the Eleventh Circuit and the United States
Supreme Court have held that a defendant may not be found guilty of a federal crime
unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with culpable
mens rea.
In some cases and the defendant will argue at trial that this is such a case the
government is required to prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct
was expressly forbidden by the law. See, e.g., Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192
(1991). This is the rule in circumstances, such as this case, where the laws are highly
complex and a prosecution without proof ofmens rea would risk ensnaring a
businessman who intended to comply with all relevant laws on a novel interpretation of
the law. See also Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994); United States v. Adames,
878 F.2d 1374 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Morris, 20 F.3d 1111 (11th Cir. 1994).
As Judge Edmondson once wrote (invoking A Man For All Seasons):
The law is a causeway upon which, so long as he keeps to it, a citizen may walk
safely. . . To be free of tyranny in a free country, the causeways edges must be
clearly marked. The exercise of federal government power to criminalize conduct and
thereby to coerce and to deprive persons, by government action, of their liberty,
reputation and property must be watched carefully in a country that values the
liberties of its private citizens. Never can we allow federal prosecutors to make up the
law as they go along.
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
13/194
13
United States v. Brown, 79 F.3d 1550, 1562 (11th Cir. 1996). One of the central tenets of
American legal jurisprudence is that [l]iving under a rule of law entails various suppositions,
one of which is that (all persons) are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or
forbids. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 (1972) (quotingLanzetta v.
New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939).
The governments suggestion that the absence of the term willfully in the statute
eliminates any culpable mens rea element disregards settled law in this Circuit. In United
States v. Grigsby, 111 F.3d 806 (11th Cir. 1997), for example, the statute at issue
contained no willful requirement, yet, the Eleventh Circuit held that the government
was required to prove that the defendant was aware of the specific laws and regulations
that he violated and knew that he was engaged in criminal conduct.
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that a statute that contains no
willfullness requirement may still require the government to prove that the defendant
was aware of the specific law he is charged with violating that is, that the defendant
was aware that his conduct was illegal. Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985)
(construing the Food Stamp Act, which contains no requirement that the defendant act
willfully, and requiring that the government prove that the defendant was aware of the
laws requirements and prohibitions). See also United States v. United States Gypsum
Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) (interpreting Sherman Antitrust Act, which contains no explicit
mens rea requirement, but requiring, nevertheless, a culpable state of mind).
Often, what dictates the level ofmens rea which the government is required to
prove is the complexity of the underlying regulations that the defendant is charged with
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
14/194
14
violating. Thus, in situations with complex regulatory schemes such as the tax code
the government is required to prove that the defendant acted with a higher degree of
knowing culpability. In Cheek, the Supreme Court held that the government would be
required to prove that the defendant had the specific intent to violate the law, knowing
what the law required and what it prohibited, and that the defendants belief that he was
in compliance with the law even if the defendants belief was objectively unreasonable
was a complete defense.
Consider the complexity of this law, not just on its face, but also the novelty of the
theory of prosecution. On its face, the Controlled Substances Act does not apply to
doctors who issue prescriptions for controlled substances. Presumably, doctors are aware
of the myriad of requirements that govern their practice. Yet, as the evidence in this case
will demonstrate, in part because of the novelty of the Internet itself, there was no clear
governing rule about the propriety/legality of prescribing medication (particularly
Schedule III and IV controlled substances) based on an online questionnaire. Many states
did not even suggest that it was illegal or inappropriate. Some states simply hadnt
considered the issue in a formal manner. Other states had policies (with a small p)
which were informal advisory opinions. There was (and still is) no federal law relating to
the legality of online prescriptions. A more complex set of conflicting and inconsistent
regulations without any uniform federal standard is hard to imagine. And the way in
which these various state regulations, policies and interpretations would implicate the
federal Controlled Substances Act was completely untested.
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
15/194
15
Thus, on the face of the law itself, the complexity and uncertainty of the law
mandates that a more rigorous mens rea requirement be imposed. The governments
suggestion that the government should not be required to prove any culpable mens rea
is unconscionable.
Looking beyond the face of the statutes and regulations, the fact that professionals
in the health care and legal fields were incapable of predicting how the laws would be
interpreted further supports the need for the most heightened mens rea requirement.
These principles apply in cases of money laundering and controlled substances
prosecutions.
In United States v. McIntosh, 124 F.3d 1330 (10th Cir. 1997), the defendant was charged
with bankruptcy fraud and money laundering on the basis of his failure to disclose during his
bankruptcy proceeding that he had received certain money and deposited some of those funds in
a bank account he controlled through an unincorporated business he managed. The defendant's
bankruptcy attorney testified that he was aware of the existence of the unincorporated business
and was remiss in failing to inquire further and determine if its existence should have been
disclosed to the bankruptcy court. This evidence was sufficient to prompt an "advice-of-counsel"
instruction and the failure to instruct the jury on this defense was error.
In United States v. Caseer, 399 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2005) , the Sixth Circuit considered
whether a mistake of law defense was appropriate in a case involving a unique violation of the
federal Controlled Substances act. Khat is a substance that contains both cathinone and cathine,
both of which are controlled substance. Khat is a vegetation that is frequently chewed
(apparently like chewing tobacco) by people in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere. The
Sixth Circuit reversed the defendants conviction in light of the failure of the government to
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
16/194
16
prove that he had the requisite mens rea to commit the offense. The general rule that citizens
are presumed to know the requirements of the law is not absolute, the Court held, and may be
arrogated when a law is so technical or obscure that it threatens to ensnare individuals engaged in
apparently innocent conduct. To presume knowledge of such a law would violate a core due
process principle, namely that citizens are entitled to fair warning that their conduct may be
criminal. Outlawing cathinone and cathine did not provide clear warning that khat was
illegal to possess. To overcome this flaw in the statute, the court held that the government
would be required to prove actual knowledge that the possession and importation of khat
was illegal. The evidence was insufficient to prove the defendants actual knowledge in this
case.
Thus, the governments argument that money laundering and controlled
substances cases are automatically offenses that require no proof ofmens rea is overly
simplistic. Given the allegations in this case, the government, as in Caseer, must prove
that the defendant was aware that his conduct was unlawful and conducted his affairs knowingly,
in an unlawful manner.4
Needless to say, at the core of the governments argument is the adage, Ignorance of the
Law Is No Defense. While this is a handy slogan for non-lawyers, as with so many simplistic
maxims, reliance on them by courts is hardly appropriate. Indeed, the notion that ignorance of
the law is no defense has been rejected by countless Supreme Court cases, as noted above,
4The governments reliance on United States v. Dohan, 508 F.3d 989 (11th Cir. 2008) ismeritless, as well. In any money laundering case, the government mustprove that the defendantknew that the money that was involved in the transaction was dirty or, more precisely, theproceeds of some felonious activity. WhatDohan held is that the government is not required toprove that the defendant knew that transacting in dirty money is itself a crime. That is obvious.By analogy to this case, however, what the government mustprove is that Stoufflet knew that themoney was derived from felonious activity. Under the governments myopic reading of thatdecision, the defendant need not even know the money was dirty. That is plainly wrong.
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
17/194
17
including Cheek v. United States, supra;Ratzlaf v. United States, supra; and scores of Eleventh
Circuit cases that rely on those decisions. Even a first year law student knows that the difference
between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law is often blurred by the existence of legal
preconditions that must exist in order for a crime to be committed. Consider the crime of
adultery, for example: if a defendant marries a woman, believing that he has accomplished a
divorce from his first wife, is it a mistake of fact or a mistake of law if it turns out that the
first divorce was somehow defective and he is still married to his first wife? In a trespass case, is
it a mistake of fact or a mistake of law if the defendant contends that he believed that he had a
valid easement that entitled him to occupy property that actually belonged to his neighbor?
In this case, was it a mistake of fact, or a mistake of law, that Chris Stoufflet did not
know (or appreciate the significance of) various state administrative regulations and medical
board policies that urged, or in some instances required, doctors to conduct in-person diagnoses
of patients before prescribing weight loss medication? If he believed that the State of South
Carolina, for example, had not taken a position on online prescriptions, is that a mistake of fact
or a mistake of law? This troublesome question is particularly irksome when one considers that
the various policies of the fifty state medical boards are not codified in the same manner as a
criminal law.
And irksome hardly describes the situation when the court considers the fact that even
the FDA agent who initiated this investigation toldStoufflet that online prescribing of
medication is not illegal! SeeUnited States v. Hedges, 912 F.2d 1397 (11th Cir. 1990); United
States v. Funches, 135 F.3d 1405 (11th
Cir. 1998); United States v. Eaton, 179 F.3d 1328 (11th
Cir. 1999); United States v. Thompson, 25 F.3d 1558 (11th Cir 1994); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S.
559 (1965). These cases, which explore the concept of entrapment by estoppel, explain that even
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
18/194
18
in a strict liability offense, where absolutely no mens rea is required to be proven at all, a
defendants reliance on the statement of a public official that his conduct is legal provides a
defense to criminal charges.
Finally, the Supreme Court and other courts have held that to the extent that a statute is
vague or subject to varying interpretations, this vagueness can be cured by requiring the
government to prove that the defendants violation of the law was intentional and willful, thus
protecting citizens from prosecution for conduct that they did not realize was criminal. In this
case, only by requiring the government to prove that the defendant willfully violated the law
and by permitting the defendant to introduce evidence that he did not willfully violated the law
can the inherent uncertainty of the law be tolerated.
The right of a defendant to present all relevant evidence in support of his defense is a
core principle inherent in the Due Process Clause. See Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 318
(2006) (reversing conviction where defendant was barred from introducing evidence that
demonstrated his innocence); United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1989) (reversing
conviction where trial court barred defense from introducing evidence that demonstrated that he
lacked the mens rea to commit the offense); United States v. Ethridge, 948 F.2d 1215 (11th
Cir.
1992) (reversing conviction where evidence that negated defendants mens rea was improperly
excluded).
The Eleventh Circuit has set forth the rules governing the availability of the Advice of
Counsel defense in numerous cases (catalogued in SAMUEL, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
CRIMINAL HANDBOOK, 92 (2007)). See United States v. Eisenstein, 731 F.2d 1540 (11th
Cir. 1984); Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction (Criminal) Special Instruction #18 (2003).
What is required is proof that the defendant fully revealed to his lawyers the nature of his
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
19/194
19
business and sought their advice about the legality of his conduct. The evidence in this case
overwhelmingly supports this defense and the governments effort to bar the presentation of
evidence in support of the defense must be rejected.
The governments Motion in Limine should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
GARLAND, SAMUEL & LOEB, P.C.
DONALD F. SAMUELGa. State Bar #624475
3151 Maple Drive, NEAtlanta, Georgia 303035404-262-2225Fax [email protected]
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
20/194
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) CRIMINAL NO.
v. ) 1:06-CR-337-CC
CHRISTOPHER STOUFFLET, et al )
Defendants. )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this date served the within and foregoing Defendants
Response to Governments Motion in Limine which will automatically send e-mail notification of
such filing to the attorneys of record.
This the 3rd day of March, 2008.
DONALD F. SAMUELGa. State Bar #624475
3151 Maple Drive, NEAtlanta, Georgia 303035404-262-2225Fax [email protected]
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
21/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
22/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
23/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
24/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
25/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
26/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
27/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
28/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
29/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
30/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
31/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
32/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
33/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
34/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
35/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
36/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
37/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
38/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
39/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
40/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
41/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
42/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
43/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
44/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
45/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
46/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
47/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
48/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
49/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
50/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
51/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
52/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
53/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
54/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
55/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
56/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
57/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
58/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
59/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
60/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
61/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
62/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
63/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
64/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
65/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
66/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
67/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
68/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
69/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
70/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
71/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
72/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
73/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
74/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
75/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
76/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
77/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
78/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
79/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
80/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
81/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
82/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
83/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
84/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
85/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
86/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
87/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
88/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
89/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
90/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
91/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
92/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
93/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
94/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
95/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
96/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
97/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
98/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
99/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
100/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
101/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
102/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
103/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
104/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
105/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
106/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
107/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
108/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
109/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
110/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
111/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
112/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
113/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
114/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
115/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
116/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
117/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
118/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
119/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
120/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
121/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
122/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
123/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
124/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
125/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
126/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
127/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
128/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
129/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
130/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
131/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
132/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
133/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
134/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
135/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
136/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
137/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
138/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
139/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
140/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
141/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
142/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
143/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
144/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
145/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
146/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
147/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
148/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
149/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
150/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
151/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
152/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
153/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
154/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
155/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
156/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
157/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
158/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
159/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
160/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
161/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
162/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
163/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
164/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
165/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
166/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
167/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
168/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
169/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
170/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
171/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
172/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
173/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
174/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
175/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
176/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
177/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
178/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
179/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
180/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
181/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
182/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
183/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
184/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
185/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
186/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
187/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
188/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
189/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
190/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
191/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
192/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
193/194
-
8/14/2019 Responce to Governments Motion in Limine [wExhibits] 03-03-2008
194/194