U.S. lawyers argue against Manns’ retrial

In 13-page filing, they say evidence at trial allowable

Randeep Mann was found guilty in U.S. District Court of plotting a bombing that seriously injured the chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board.
Randeep Mann was found guilty in U.S. District Court of plotting a bombing that seriously injured the chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board.

— Russellville doctor Randeep Mann, convicted in the bombing that injured the chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board, and his wife don’t deserve new trials, federal prosecutors say in court papers filed Friday.

The 13-page pleading is a response to motions filed by Mann, 52, and Sangeeta “Sue” Mann, 49, arguing that they should receive a new trial or outright acquittals after being convicted last month of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and concealing documents from use in an official proceeding. The two are jailed awaiting sentencing that has yet to be scheduled. Randeep Mann also was convicted of illegal weapons possession and of other charges in the February 2009 bombing of Dr. Trent Pierce at Pierce’s West Memphis home.

Authorities said Mann arranged the explosion that severely injured Pierce, chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board, out of revenge for the agency’s probe into whether Mann was violating an agreement not to dispense prescription medication. If the accusations had proved to be true, Mann, who had been sanctioned by the panel before, would have had his medical license revoked.

The obstruction charges involved documents that Sangeeta Mann took from her husband’s medical-clinic offices. The offices were later searched by federal investigators. Randeep Mann was in jail at the time, but during the trial, prosecutors played taped jailhouse phone conversations between the couple in which Mann asked his wife to secure the papers, which pertained to his younger brother and his brother’s son.

Even though Sangeeta Mann later turned the documents over to prosecutors and the papers were deemed insignificant to the federal investigation, prosecutors said the Manns knowingly hid items that could have been important in the investigation. Defense attorneys said there was no proof that the Manns intended to hide documents that might have any bearing on a grand jury investigation.

In calling for either acquittals or a new trial, the defense motions attacked the way prosecutors amended an original indictment, questioned the propriety of some jury instructions and disputed the level of proof presented to support convictions on the two charges. The Manns’ attorneys claim that prosecutors didn’t prove that the removed documents were important to the case or that they would have altered the grand jury’s investigation if the grand jury had them.

Special section

Doctor bombing

But in Friday’s response, assistant U.S. attorneys Karen Whatley and Michael Gordon argued that the guilty verdicts must be upheld mainly because the jailhouse phone calls would have allowed any reasonable juror to conclude that the couple worked together to hide the documents.

The prosecutors contended that the defense claims focused only on accusations that the Manns were attempting to deceive a grand jury, but the law also would allow jurors to conclude that the couple were attempting to conceal documents from federal investigators for any number of hearings related to their charges.

Charging papers, known as a bill of particulars, questioned by the defense, provided only the facts of the case for the Manns to prepare for trial and didn’t alter the indictments as claimed by their lawyers, according to the prosecution’s response.

The prosecutors also disputed accusations that jury instructions were inadequate, stating in the filing that jurors were only to be told what the charges were, and were not required to be instructed on the conspiracy’s objective or how the conspiracy was to be carried out.

Arkansas, Pages 13 on 09/04/2010

Upcoming Events