Court: United States District Court for the District of New JerseyJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: Durante v. United StatesCitation: 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6865
Facts
A New Jersey doctor was implicated in a federal sting operation for illegally selling oxycodone pills to two drug distribution networks. He was caught on tape taking $300 from the distributor in return for prescriptions, as well as $100 for an extra drug he offered to an undercover agent. After a multi-week trial, the jury found him guilty on fifteen counts of oxycodone distribution and one count of conspiracy to distribute oxycodone. He was sentenced to 136 months in prison.
The doctor then unsuccessfully appealed this decision. After this, he filed a § 2255 motion, raising 10 grounds for relief, including claiming his counsel provided him with insufficient assistance. The petitioner argued his counsel was incompetent for failing to challenge the testimony given by the plaintiff’s handwriting expert witness.
The Handwriting Expert Witness
The petitioner’s complaint decried that his lawyer did not challenge the findings of the plaintiff’s handwriting expert. The petitioner also contended that the defense counsel had failed to stop the plaintiff from producing forged prescriptions as evidence in his name. The handwriting expert witness testified that 33 prescriptions introduced as evidence had been signed by the petitioner.
On the grounds of that motion, the Court had held a mid-trial hearing in Daubert and eventually allowed the Government to call its handwriting witness.
Discussion
The court pointed out that the petitioner’s counsel had filed a motion to exclude the plaintiff’s handwriting expert before the commencement of the initial trial. The motion included allegations of violating Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16.
The motion also claimed failure to comply with Daubert’s requirement of reliability and that the plaintiff breached their discovery obligations under Rule 16 concerning expert handwriting reports and materials.
As a result, the court conducted a Daubert hearing midtrial and ultimately allowed the plaintiff to call their handwriting witness. However, after the plaintiff counsel rested their case in the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel was able to have nearly 500 prescriptions struck from evidence based on lack of foundation. The court found this to be “every argument that the petitioner wanted her to make.” Thus, the petitioner’s claims against his counsel were not valid.
Held
The motion for relief based on insufficient counsel for failure to challenge the opposing party’s handwriting expert witness was denied.
About the author
Zach Barreto
Zach Barreto is a distinguished professional in the legal industry, currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Research at the Expert Institute. With a deep understanding of a broad range of legal practice areas, Zach's expertise encompasses personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, defective products, and many other sectors. His skills are particularly evident in handling complex litigation matters, including high-profile cases like the Opioids litigation, NFL Concussion Litigation, California Wildfires, 3M earplugs, Elmiron, Transvaginal Mesh, NFL Concussion Litigation, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, Hernia Mesh, IVC filters, Paraquat, Paragard, Talcum Powder, Zantac, and many others.
Under his leadership, the Expert Institute’s research team has expanded impressively from a single member to a robust team of 100 professionals over the last decade. This growth reflects his ability to navigate the intricate and demanding landscape of legal research and expert recruitment effectively. Zach has been instrumental in working on nationally significant litigation matters, including cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic chemical exposure, and wrongful death, among others.
At the Expert Institute, Zach is responsible for managing all aspects of the research department and developing strategic institutional relationships. He plays a key role in equipping attorneys for success through expert consulting, case management, strategic research, and expert due diligence provided by the Institute’s cloud-based legal services platform, Expert iQ.
Educationally, Zach holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and European History from Vanderbilt University.
