Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Chris Lazarini Examines Case in which Securities Broker Challenges Criminal Conviction, Arguing Violations of Brady Rule and Denial of Due Process

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

February 1, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney examined the case of State of Michigan vs. Dicken in which a broker sought to overturn her convictions for obtaining money by false pretenses, embezzlement and criminal enterprise. In her appeal, the broker argued the following:

  1. The prosecution failed to produce documents that "might have" contained evidence favorable to her, in violation of Brady v. Maryland.
  2. The prosecution's securities expert improperly offered legal conclusions.
  3. The trial court abused its discretion and denied her due process by excluding her 75-minute recorded interview with state investigators, which she sought to use to establish her cooperation with investigators.
  4. The trial court abused its discretion by making a substantial departure from the sentencing guidelines on her criminal enterprise conviction.

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

State of Michigan vs. Dicken, No. 322998 (Mich. App., 1/12/16) 

Under Michigan court rules, prosecutors must turn over to the defense police reports, exculpatory information or evidence, witness lists and statements, expert C.V.'s, and any expert report or a written description of the proposed expert’s testimony. 

Defendant broker was convicted of seven counts of obtaining money by false pretenses, one count of embezzlement from a vulnerable adult and one count of conducting a criminal enterprise, after the jury determined that she steered clients into risky limited partnership investments to obtain high commissions. The trial court sentenced her to concurrent prison terms of 23 months to five years for each false pretense conviction, 71 months to 15 years for the embezzlement conviction, and 140 months to 20 years for the criminal enterprise conviction. The latter term marked a significant upward departure from the state's statutory sentencing guidelines. Defendant appealed as of right, seeking a new trial.

Defendant first argues that the prosecution failed to produce documents that "might have" contained evidence favorable to her, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Court finds Defendant failed to carry her Brady burden. The mere possibility that evidence might be helpful to the defense cannot establish the materiality component of a Brady violation. Evidence is material, the Court states, if there is a reasonable probability that, had it been disclosed, the outcome would have been different. Here, Defendant did not specify anything in the withheld materials that might have assisted her defense and did not request an in camera review by the trial court.

Defendant next argues that the prosecution's securities expert improperly offered legal conclusions. The Court disagrees, finding that the expert did not opine that Defendant committed a crime, but only that Defendant was negligent in failing to conduct due diligence on the limited partnership investment and making unsuitable investment recommendations. The question of intent and criminal responsibility, the Court explains, was properly left solely to the jury. Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the prosecution's pre-trial summary of the expert's expected testimony. The Court finds no abuse of discretion in not requiring a more in-depth summary, because the record reveals that Defendant's counsel conducted a vigorous cross-examination of the expert. 

Defendant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion and denied her due process by excluding Defendant's 75-minute recorded interview with state investigators, which Defendant sought to use to establish that she cooperated with investigators. The Court notes that, while relevant evidence is admissible, it may be excluded by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentations of cumulative evidence. Here, Defendant testified about her cooperation, the investigator admitted that Defendant cooperated and the trial court gave Defendant the right to show portions of the video for impeachment purposes, although Defendant elected not to do so.

Finally, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by making a substantial departure from the sentencing guidelines on her criminal enterprise conviction. The Court remands to the trial court the issue of the reasonableness of its departure from the sentencing guidelines on the criminal enterprise conviction, but it affirms the convictions and sentencing for false pretenses and embezzlement. 

The Court notes its review of several of Defendant's arguments was limited to whether the trial court committed plain error because Defendant failed to raise the arguments at the trial court level. It does not appear, however, that the Court would have reached a different conclusion on any of the issues had a more exacting standard of review applied.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.