United States v. Luis Jacinto Marti , 317 F. App'x 948 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-12581 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 3, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-20849-CR-JEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS JACINTO MARTI,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 3, 2009)
Before BIRCH, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Luis Jacinto Marti appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial based
on newly discovered evidence. The district court ruled that the evidence was not
material. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2006, Marti was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit
healthcare fraud and fifteen counts of healthcare fraud. Marti signed medical
documents as the supervising physician for codefendant Jorge Valido that
recommended medically unnecessary treatments for patients on Medicaid, and
Marti’s signature was forged on prescriptions for those patients. See United States
v. Marti, No. 07-11422 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2008). After Marti was served a
subpoena to produce medical records for some of Valido’s patients, Marti reviewed
the records and instructed Valido to make changes to those records before they
were turned over to the government. Marti argued that the medically unnecessary
treatments were added after he signed the medical records and his signatures on the
prescriptions were forged by his codefendants without his consent. A forensic
document examiner for the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified that all of the
patient documents referenced in the indictment contained signatures that either
were forged or were not comparable to Marti’s signature.
We held on direct appeal that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to
find that Marti allowed his codefendants to use his signature. We stated four
2
reasons in support of our conclusion: 1) Marti was the only doctor who supervised
Valido and signed prescriptions during the time that Valido’s medical license was
restricted; 2) Marti’s authentic signature appeared on numerous medical records
that referenced the use of medically unnecessary drugs; 3) Marti reviewed these
records several times and never disavowed his signature; and 4) Marti admitted
that he had testified falsely at a pre-trial deposition that he would not have signed
the chart of a patient unless he had observed Valido with the patient. Marti, No.
07-11422, slip op. at 9–10.
In March 2008, Marti moved for a new trial based on newly discovered
evidence. Marti alleged that, in January 2008, an auditor from the Department of
Health and Human Services showed him nine medical documents that had been
filed with the Medicaid agency by Floridian Medical Supply, Inc. from December
2005 through July 2006 and bore Marti’s forged signature. Marty alleged that he
had never affiliated with Floridian Medical or treated the patients mentioned in the
medical records. Marti argued that the nine documents supported his defense at
trial that someone forged his signature without his authority. Attached to the
motion was a report prepared by a document examiner that stated the signatures on
the Floridian Medical documents were not genuine. The report contained copies of
the Floridian Medical documents and copies of documents that bore Marti’s actual
3
signature.
The district court denied Marti’s motion and disagreed that the evidence
supported his theory of defense. The district court found that Marti failed to
establish that the forgeries were related to his earlier convictions or that his
signature was forged by the same individual. The court concluded that the newly
discovered evidence “could demonstrate that someone forged Marti’s name in
connection with a different type of Medicaid fraud scheme four years after the
conduct for which Marti was indicted occurred” and “[t]he connection of these
documents [to the evidence underlying his convictions] is tenuous at best.”
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1151 (11th Cir. 2006). The decision to
deny an evidentiary hearing is also a decision “‘within the trial court’s sound
discretion, subject to review only for an abuse of that discretion.’” United States v.
Schlei, 122 F.3d 944, 990 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Slocum, 708
F.2d 587, 600 (11th Cir. 1983)).
III. DISCUSSION
Although “the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the
interest of justice so requires,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), “a much more stringent
4
standard applies” when the motion is filed more than seven days after the
conviction. Schlei, 122 F.3d at 990–91. Such motions “are highly disfavored . . .
and should be granted only with great caution.” Campa, 459 F.3d at 1151. To
succeed on the motion, the defendant must prove that he discovered the evidence
after his trial; his failure to discover the evidence earlier is not attributable to a lack
of due diligence; the evidence is not cumulative or impeaching; the evidence is
material; and the evidence is of such a nature that it would likely produce a
different result in a new trial. See Schlei, 122 F.3d at 991. “‘The failure to satisfy
any one of these elements is fatal to a motion for a new trial.’” Id. (quoting United
States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267, 1274 (11th Cir. 1995)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Marti’s motion and
his request for an evidentiary hearing. The district court presided over Marti’s trial
and was sufficiently familiar with the case to determine that Marti’s new evidence
was not material to his defense. See United States v. Hirst, 668 F.2d 1180, 1185
(11th Cir. 1982) (“Newly discovered evidence must be material and the question of
materiality rests in the discretion of the court.”); see also Schlei, 122 F.3d at 994(“‘[T]he acumen gained by a trial judge over the course of the proceedings makes
[him] well qualified to rule . . . without a hearing.’” (quoting United States v.
Hamilton, 559 F.2d 1370, 1373–74 (5th Cir. 1977))). Marti failed to establish a
5
connection between the Floridian Medical records and the evidence of forgery
offered at his trial. Marti asserts that “unknown persons” forged his signature on
the Floridian Medical documents, but he shared a business relationship with Valido
and others who purportedly altered the medical records and forged his signature on
the prescriptions. Forgeries of unrelated documents do not contradict the finding
that Marti allowed his codefendants to forge his signature as part of their
conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud.
The denial of Marti’s motion for a new trial is AFFIRMED.
6