United States v. Robinson

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. IVAN L. ROBINSON, Defendant

Criminal Action No. 16-98 (CKK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

September 17, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Ivan Robinson's [284] Motion for a New Trial and [326] Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Institution of Conditions of Release Pending Sentencing.¹ Both Motions are grounded in the argument that Defendant Robinson is entitled to a new trial based on two violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The United States contends that Defendant Robinson is not entitled to a new trial, and thus should not be released from custody, because the two withheld pieces of evidence do not constitute violations under Brady and because Defendant Robinson received effective assistance of counsel.

Upon consideration of the pleadings,² the relevant legal authorities, and the record for purposes of this motion, the Court DENIES Defendant Robinson's [284] Motion for a New Trialand therefore also DENIES his [326] Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Institution of Conditions of Release Pending Sentencing. The Court concludes that the two pieces of withheld evidence do not constitute violations under Brady as they do not call into question the fairness of the ultimate verdict. The Court further concludes that Defendant Robinson's trial counsel³ were not ineffective, and that the decision not to call an expert witness was a strategic decision that did not cause prejudice to Defendant Robinson. Finally, the Court concludes that the myriad arguments that Defendant Robinson briefly raises are not meritorious.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Robinson was a licensed nurse practitioner who maintained a medical practice in Washington, D.C., with offices in various locations. ECF No. 284, 1. Defendant Robinson's practice eventually comprised thousands of patients and he began to specialize in spinal injuries. Id. Defendant Robinson represents that he treated his patients with a "patented protocol includingspinal decompression therapy, medication, exercise, and diet," which involved "oxycodone in a dose of 30 milligrams" as part of the medication protocol. Id.

In February 2013, the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") received reports from "pharmacists who had noticed suspicious patterns regarding oxycodone prescriptions originating from the defendant's practice" and subsequently launched an investigation into Defendant Robinson's medical practice. ECF No. 290, 5. In March 2013, undercover officers went to one of Defendant Robinson's clinics and posed as patients "in an attempt to purchase oxycodone prescriptions." Id. Two of the agents were able to "purchase a prescription for oxycodone from the defendant in exchange for $370 blank money orders," while the third agent "was turned away." Id. at 5, n.5. The two agents who received prescriptions returned in April 2013, and obtained additional prescriptions for oxycodone, again in exchange for $370 in blank money orders and without an adequate physical exam. Id. at 5. On June 19, 2013, search warrants were executed and conducted at Defendant Robinson's home and at two of his clinics. Id. at 6. Following the execution of the search warrants, Defendant Robinson withdrew $108,000 from his bank account. ECF No. 284, 2.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2016, Defendant Robinson was indicted with fifty-five counts of prescribing oxycodone "outside the legitimate practice of medicine," as well as forfeiture allegations with respect to the $108,000 bank account withdrawal, cash found on him during the execution of the search warrant, and a vehicle. Id. On April 27, 2017, a superseding indictment was returned, charging Defendant Robinson with sixty-one counts of prescribing oxycodone—eighteen ofwhich were eventually dropped—and two counts of money laundering pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1957. ECF No. 290, 4.

On August 10, 2017, following an approximately 20-day trial, Defendant Robinson was found guilty of forty-two counts of prescribing oxycodone outside the legitimate practice of medicine and two counts of money laundering. Id. Defendant Robinson was found not guilty of one count of prescribing oxycodone. Id. Lastly, the jury arrived at a split verdict on the forfeiture allegations, determining that the $108,000 and the vehicle were "proceeds constituting or derived from [Defendant's] prescription of oxycodone and money laundering," while ten money orders, totaling $3,330 and $997 in cash, did not constitute such proceeds. Id.

On October 20, 2017, trial counsel for Defendant Robinson moved for a new trial. ECF No. 284. On December 8, 2017, the United States filed an Opposition to that Motion. ECF No. 290.

Prior to the filing of a Reply by Defendant Robinson, the Court received a motion from Defendant Robinson to discharge his trial counsel. ECF No. 303. On February 22, 2018, the Court granted Defendant Robinson's Motion to discharge his trial counsel. ECF No. 306. Defendant Robinson was appointed new counsel. During a March 23, 2018 hearing, the Court allowed Defendant Robinson's new counsel to have extensive time to review the record of the case and to accommodate counsel's schedule. The Court ordered that, following a review of the case, Defendant Robinson would file a Reply to the United States' Opposition to Defendant Robinson's Motion for a New Trial which would address the arguments in Defendant Robinson's original motion as well as any arguments that the new defense counsel sought to raise. March 23, 2018 Minute Order.

On December 31, 2018, Defendant Robinson filed his Reply to the United States' Opposition. ECF No. 327. He also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Institution of Conditions of Release Pending Sentencing, bringing new arguments relating to two alleged Brady violations and ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 326. On February 14, 2019, the United States filed an omnibus response to both of Defendant Robinson's pending motions. ECF No. 330. The United States argued that Defendant Robinson had received effective assistance of counsel but indicated that if the claim was to be pursued additional discovery would be required. Id. And, on March 8, 2019, Defendant Robinson filed a Reply to the United States' Opposition. ECF No. 332.

On April 1, 2019, the Court held a teleconference to discuss Defendants Robinson's pending Motions. During the teleconference, the Court indicated that there was overlap between Defendant Robinson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and his other claims. As such, in order to resolve the pending Motions, Defendant Robinson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim would need to be more detailed. Defendant Robinson agreed to waive his attorney client privilege with his trial counsel so that the United States could conduct discovery and the Court could address the claim. April 1, 2019 Minute Order.

Due to the high volume of material relating to Defendant Robinson's claim, discovery into the materials took some time. Following discovery, the Court set a schedule for supplemental briefing on Defendant Robinson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. On October 24, 2019, the United States filed its supplemental opposition to Defendant Robinson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. ECF No. 351. And, following multiple motions forextensions of time, Defendant Robinson filed his Reply to that Opposition on March 13, 2020. ECF No. 364.

As the briefing for all of Defendant Robinson's arguments in support of a new trial are now complete, the Court shall address each argument.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Defendant Robinson has filed two Motions—a motion for a new trial and a motion to reconsider his conditions of confinement. Both Motions are interrelated as Defendant Robinson requests that he be released from custody in large part because he is entitled to a new trial. As such, the Court's analysis shall be conducted pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 which governs requests for new trials.

Under Rule 33, upon motion by the defendant, a court "may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires." Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). In order to grant a new trial, "the evidence must preponderate heavily against the verdict, such that it would be a miscarriage of justice to let the verdict stand." United States v. Howard, 245 F. Supp. 2d 24, 30 (D.D.C. 2003) (quoting United States v. Edmond, 765 F. Supp. 1112, 1118 (D.D.C. 1991)). In making its determination, the district court "weighs the evidence and evaluates the witnesses' credibility and decides whether 'a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred.'" United States v. Rogers, 918 F.2d 207, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 38 n.11 (1982)). Notably, this "power should be exercised with caution, and is invoked only in those exceptional cases in which the evidence weighs heavily against the verdict." Edmond, 765 F. Supp. at 1118. The moving party has "the burden of proof that a new trial is justified." Id.

IV. DISCUSSION

The Court shall proceed in evaluating Defendant Robinson's arguments in favor of a new trial. The Court shall first address the myriad arguments raised in Defendant Robinson's initial Motion filed by his trial counsel. The Court shall next address Defendant Robinson's primary arguments in support of a new trial—claims of Brady violations and ineffective assistance of trial.

A. Previously Addressed Arguments

As was previously discussed, Defendant Robinson's trial counsel filed his initial Motion requesting a new trial. However, before briefing had completed on that Motion, Defendant Robinson requested and received new counsel. As such, many of the arguments introduced in Defendant Robinson's initial Motion are not pursued in later briefs. Additionally, the majority of these arguments were raised before and during...