LITTLE ROCK — Federal prosecutors should not be allowed to use drug allegations against a Pope County doctor accused of planting a bomb that injured the head of the Arkansas State Medical Board, defense attorneys argue.
The accusations that Dr. Randeep Mann illegally prescribed and possessed medications are just an attempt to smear him in front of a jury, attorney Blake Hendrix claims in Tuesday court filings. Mann is scheduled to stand trial July 6 in Little Rock federal court on allegations that he illegally hoarded grenades and set a handmade bomb that partially blinded Dr. Trent Pierce, the medical board chairman, outside Pierce’s West Memphis home last year.
Mann’s wife, Sangeeta “Sue” Mann, will be tried with him on charges of conspiracy to obstruct proceedings, aiding and abetting evidence tampering, and lying to a grand jury. Proceedings are expected to last at least a month.
The Manns do not face any drug charges, and Hendrix argues that U.S. District Judge Brian S. Miller should bar prosecutors from telling jurors that Randeep Mann had been accused of illegally prescribing morphine, Xanax, Lorcet and Ambien for the three years leading up to his March 2009 arrest. Accusations by prosecutors that Mann was in illegal possession of hydrocodone, alprazolam, morphine, oxycodone,methadone and clonezapam when he was arrested should also be prohibited from trial, the defense filing argues.
“Dr. Mann is a long-time gun collector who held a federal firearms license for decades. Evidence that he allegedly prescribed and possessed controlled medications when his permit was suspended does nothing to answer the question of whether or why he allegedly possessed unregistered weapons,” the filing states. “The impact of the evidence would be to persuade the jury that Dr. Mann had no regard for his patients or, at worst, an inference of a drug problem.”
A response from prosecutors is pending. Miller could convene a hearing to decide the issue.
Prosecutors notified the defense last week about their intentions to use the accusations as proof of Mann’s motive, according to the filing. Authorities say Mann bombed Pierce to get revenge against the medical board’s continuing probe of his medical practice. At the time of the bombing, the board was investigating whether Mann had bought prescription drugs over the Internet and sold them to patients in violation of the ban.
Mann agreed to give up his prescription-writing authority in a July 2006 deal with the medical board that let him keep his medical license as long as he abided by the arrangement. The drugs he’s accused of having are all common medications for a doctor to possess, Hendrix claims in the court file.
Character evidence is generally barred at trial under the Fifth Amendment unless the defendant testifies or otherwise makes his character an issue. But authorities can use evidence of other crimes against a defendant, with some restrictions, if prosecutors can show those other offenses are similar to the case at trial and can demonstrate the defendant’s motive, opportunity or knowledge. And then, even if prosecutors can meet that standard, the judge can bar that evidence if it is deemed too inflammatory.
But accusations that Mann improperly prescribed medications don’t prove that Mann would plant a bomb to injure someone just because he’d had to give up his prescription powers, the defense filing states.
“In this case, there is no connection between an allegation Dr. Mann prescribed or possessed controlled medications after his permit was suspended and the bombing of Dr. Pierce,” according to the motion. “These alleged prior acts do not lend to prove the government’s theory of motive, that Dr. Mann retaliated against the [medical board] for disciplining him.”
The drug allegations also don’t prove that Mann was illegally keeping the grenades, the defense argues.
“The government makes no effort to allege that the weapons had any connection to its assertion that he prescribed medication unlawfully,” the filing states. “This evidence, therefore, is relevant only to prove Dr. Mann’s character, which is an impermissible purpose.”
Arkansas, Pages 9 on 06/24/2010