Justice Denied
Radley Balko | February 13, 2008, 11:36pm
The Third Circuit has denied Dr. Bernard Rottschaefer's appeal.
For background, read my column on the initial prosecution of Rottschaefer here.
The justices declined to hear oral arguments in the case and, judging by the curt opinion, it looks as if they didn't bother to read the briefs, either. Rottschaefer's lawyers put together a compelling appeal with new evidence that every government witness against Rottschaefer gave false or misleading testimony. The Third Circuit dismissed those claims in all of two-and-a-half pages.
Incidentally, U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's star witness in the case against Rottschaefer, Jennifer Riggle, is currently a fugitive from justice for other crimes. The career criminal admitted in letters to her boyfriend that she lied on the stand during Rottschaefer's trial as part of a plea for leniency on her own charges. To this day, Buchanan maintains that despite all of that, Riggle was telling the truth on the stand and Rottschaefer--a doctor with no prior record whatsoever--was lying.
Meanwhile, instead of prosecuting Riggle for her admitted perjury in Rottschaefer's case, Buchanan has taken to more important matters, like prosecuting a woman for writing fictional (though admittedly depraved) stories on the Internet. Even a former Republican attorney general has called for her to resign, due to her baldly political prosecution in another case. Buchanan also brought the absurd bong case against Tommy Chong, and the first federal obscenity case in 20 years. She may not give a damn about justice, but she's got a nose for the headlines.
She won't resign, of course. It's no secret in Pennsylvania that Buchanan's angling for a career in politics. She certainly seems to have the moral compass for it.
James | February 14, 2008, 1:43am | #
Daniel,
Please stop giving the half assed legal information. The appeal in Dr. Rottschaefer's trial related to newly discovered evidence via a motion for new trial. Since the district judge turned the motion down, it was able to be appealed via the constitution and rules of the court.
As for the prosecution brief, it consisted of not addressing any of the newly discovered evidence that was presented and instead held that sufficiency of the trial evidence excluding the newly discovered evidence held the conviction.
I understand why you are not familiar with these legal matters. It is very rare that one let alone all prosecutions witnesses (as in the case of Dr. Rottschaefer) would go into court and confirm under oath that they lied (perjuried themselves) during Dr. Rottschaefer's criminal trial.
Additionally, it is even more rare that the district judge confronted with this newly discovered evidence that all controlling patient testimony was false would uphold the conviction.
Lastly, it is obscene that judges SLOVITER, SMITH and STAPLETON would uphold such a decision in the trial and decision by the district judge in this case and utilize their brief to slander the defendent.
So Daniel, when you read you law text books, realize that in certain cases, egos of judges trump proof and perjury bought by prosecutors such as Mary Beth Buchanan goes unpunished.
As for the briefs, go to the Pain Relief Network. If you want the prosecution brief with factual errors, misrepresentations of the trial record, and outright lies, ask Mary Beht Buchanan or go to Pacer.
In the end, perhpas you should just reveiw the trial record and review the new evidence and decide if the conviction is upheld. Oh wait, the third circuit was suppose to do this and they chose not to. You said not to hold them accountable.
Chris | February 15, 2008, 12:34pm | #
Dr. Rottschaefer's case is a national travesty. No matter how people attempt to rationalize what has occurred, it is clear an innocent man and his family have been crucified through the abuse of power by US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan and the Third Circuit Court.
When Ms. Buchanan first brought charges against Dr. Rottschaefer, she went to congress and the public with accusations that Dr. Rottschaefer traded sex for drugs. During the trial and aftermath of the trial, Dr. Rottschaefer provided evidence from Buchanan's own witnesses that the sex allegations were fiction. Additional evidence in the form of the prosecution witnesses' own written words documented that the entire allegations brought by Ms. Buchanan were a result of planted false testimony by Assistant US Attorney Mary McKeen Houghton and DEA Investigator Lou Colossimo. With evidence in hand, Dr. Rottschaefer sought a new trial and asked Mary Beth Buchanan to investigate the perjury committed. While the court refused to grant a new trial saying that the sex allegations were not relevant to the convictions, Ms. Buchanan refused to both investigate the allegations or revoke the plea deal with her witnesses. You see Mary Beth Buchanan released five convicted drug dealers out of state jail in exchange for their testimonies. Of course, Mary orally promised these deals for the patients' testimonies and executed the deals in writing after trial. The patients confirmed these oral agreements in correspondences and documented meetings with other physicians prior to Dr. Rottschaefer's trial. Of course, the court chose to overlook this evidence rather than hold Ms. Buchanan accountable for illegal actions of her staff and possibly her.
Before people interject that there is a DOJ process for review in these situations, such mechanisms were broken due to the conflict of interests of the Bush DOJ. You see Mary Beth Buchanan served as Director of the Executive Office of the DOJ during the period that this evidence surfaced. Since the Executive Office is responsible for disciplinary proceedings on US Attorneys, it is clear that Ms. Buchanan serving as the judge of her own actions violates this review mechanism. As such, Ms. Buchanan has done no review of the clear prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of her office by her own staff in this case.
In Rottschaefer's second appeal, Dr. Rottschaefer provided evidence in the form of sworn statements by all five patient witnesses that they lied at his trial concerning their medical conditions. With the complete medical records within his possession, Dr. Rottschaefer's legal team confronted the patients concerning their allegations of addiction and no medical need. The patients recanted their testimonies and stated the medications were for medical need and that the medicalications assisted with their medical ailments of chronic pain and anxiety/panic disorder. The patients even went further to note that they not only continued treatment with these medications from other physicians after seeing Dr. Rottschaefer, but also that they received stronger/higher dosages of these same medications from other physicians during the time of Dr. Rottschaefer's trial. Of course, Mary Beth Buchanan did not prosecute these other physicians and she did not disclose this evidence to Dr. Rottschaefer's legal team.
Now with documented proof that the patients had medical need for the medications and that Dr. Rottschaefer was acting as a physician when prescribing these medications to the patients and not as a drug dealer, Dr. Rottschaefer sought a new trial. In response, Mary Beth Buchanan raised the sex allegations that she disavowed in her previous motions that she wrote and the court chose not to act.
As it stands, the Third Circuit says openly that Dr. Rottschaefer prescribed a legal medication for known medical ailments that the medications were approved to treat and that the sex for drugs allegations were never proven within two separate opinions. The court still refuses to overturn the verdict and has basically opined that while the actions of a physician of prescribing these medications are legal, they find Dr. Rottschaefer guilty regardless of the rule of law.
Some may argue that Dr. Rottschaefer is guilty of malpractice (a crime which is not a federal felony and only a civil issue). Such an argument is not sound via the current court records. After Dr. Rottschaefer's trial, all five patients and two other prosecution witnesses sued Dr. Rottschaefer for malpractice . To date, three of the cases were dismissed by the plantiffs when they were provided notification that they would have to testify under oath and release documents for review to Dr. Rottschaefer's legal team. Four other cases have been thrown out by the courts as lacking merit. The remaining case is currently still in discovery phase and has not gone to trial. As such, it appears that the good doctor is not guilty of malpractice.
What also happened in the court proceedings was that the five patients confirmed under oath that Assistant US Attorney Mary McKeen Houghton instructed them to file the lawsuits. The initial question on origin of the lawsuits was raised because all these parties waited until after Dr. Rottschaefer's trial to file these suits. When asked, some of the patients could not answer the question saying phrases like I don't recall, while others stated affirmatively that an agent of Mary Beth Buchanan's office, Assistant US Attorney Mark McKeen Houghton instructed them to file the suits. Coincidentally, Mary McKeen Houghton is the same US Attorney that executed the plea deal for perjury agreements and oversaw the prosecution of Dr. Rottschaefer.
So, when the US Courts will not even align rulings to one another or the law itself, how can we as people trust in the faith of the courts?
Daniel_Needs_To_Learn_Law | February 17, 2008, 9:35am | #
Radley and others,
After reading the responses from Daniel, I am left with the opinion that perhaps he either wrote or knows who wrote the opinion within this case. The dirty secret in the federal judicial circles is that clerks, with limited to no concrete understanding of the law, write the majority of briefs that the court signs off on. I suggest all read the book entitled The Chambermaid which is based on one of the judges who signed off on this current appeal opinion.
In this case, the court could have acted. The issue was whether the court found the new evidence in the form of all patient prosecution witnesses recanting their testimonies in the criminal trial of Dr. Rottschaefer in civil depositions was exculpatory in nature. The court can do this under SAADA; because even the court does not wish to have innocent people that can prove their innocence held in jail.
In a simplified view, what Daniel argues is flat wrong. He basically says that lets say a jury found someone guilty of homicide and then in an appeal this guilty party provides the court information that not only did the murder not occur, but also that the alleged murder victim is alive and well and has volunteered to give the court a statement of such under oath to the court. In Daniel's world, such a verdict can not be challenged because the jury in the original trial ruled a homicide occurred and the appeals court can not reverse the trial on issues of fact such as the fact the murder victim is alive.
That is how absurd the Rottschaefer case is. Dr. Rottschaefer is charged with prescribing legally approved medications that contain controlled substances which the jury determined were not for a legitimate medical purpose. Now Dr. Rottschaefer has provided the court with evidence that demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that the medications were issued for a legitimate medical purpose. The courts says as much when it writes in this opinion that "the recent deposition testimony of his former patients proves that some of them had been suffering from medical conditions that merited the treatment that he provided."
So how is someone still guilty when he/she proves his innocence? Well in this case, the court relies on slander presented in trial by the prosecution and its witnesses that it (the prosecution) even admits were not decided upon by the jury to be fact. In the first appeal of Dr. Rottschaefer, the prosecution said while they alleged that the medications were written in exchange for sex, they did not have to prove this claim in the court of law. The prosecution argues that they only had to show that the OxyContin was not prescribed for a legitimate medical purpose.
This statement was of course issued when the prosecution was presented overwhelming evidence that their witnesses fabricated the sex allegations to secure plea agreements and the evidence that the patients did have a medical need for the the medications was still hidden from the defense team. So with their backs against the wall, the prosecution disavowed that the conviction had anything to do with the alleged sex for drugs motive so that the conviction could be upheld and so they did not have to revoke the plea agreements with the witnesses.
Could you imagine what would happen if the prosecution revoked the plea agreements? All the witnesses would have to say is that the prosecution knew (or perhaps) told them to lie under oath in exchange for the plea agreements. Facts concealed from the defense such as the fact that these witnesses continued to be diagnosed with the same medical ailments and receive the same medications during Dr. Rottschaefer's trial where these witnesses claimed not to have the medical ailments or a need for the medications would take on such a sinister aspect. I mean while Dr. Rottschaefer would have been barred due to HIPPIA from reviewing these former patients' current medical records, the prosecution in Dr. Rottschaefer's case would not have been, and I imagine the good public would find it difficult to believe that the prosecution would not have reviewed these medical records in preparation for this case.
So, I guess I see why the prosecution is pushing to hold the conviction and the plea agreements. What I do not understand is why the court is supporting/facilitating these illegal actions. I'm starting to think after reading responses from individuals such as Daniel that the court is doing so because it is both apparently lazy and incompetent at the same time.
Perhaps it is time that we require judges be reappointed ever so many years. Perhaps under such a move, we would not get the career slack ass and/or f-up like we receive in this opinion.
To Daniel, if you wrote the opinion please either learn the law or get out of the law profession. If you know who wrote the opinion, express these sentiments to this individual. Realize that not only a lack of an understanding or the law, but also sheer examples of laziness by not reviewing the briefs in this case have cost an innocent man his freedom. Our nation deserves better. I just hope that the wrong the court has committed on Dr. Rottschaefer is not revisited on others, but with people such as Daniel trying to shift blame to other bodies such as Congress, I doubt that my hope is a sound one.
