United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
R. Grand United States Magistrate Judge.
OVERRULING DEFENDANT NAVARRA'S OBJECTION TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER EVIDENCE OF
ACTS “INTRINSIC” TO THE CHARGED OFFENSE  AND
DENYING DEFENDANT NAVARRA AND DEFENDANT YRORITA'S MOTIONS
TO ADJOURN THE NOVEMBER 21, 2017 TRIAL DATE [86, 87]
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
September 1, 2016, a grand jury indicted Defendant One Editha
Manzano (“Manzano”), Defendant Four Victoria
Gallardo-Navarra (“Navarra”), and Defendant Five
Juan Yrorita (“Yrorita”). Dkt. No. 1. The
Indictment charged all three defendants with engaging in a
conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count I). See
Id. Additionally, the Indictment charged Manzano with
engaging in a conspiracy to pay and receive health care
kickbacks in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count
II), and health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1347 (Count V). See id.
October 25, 2017, the Government filed a Notice of Intent to
Offer Evidence of Acts “Intrinsic” to the Offense
Charged as to Defendant Navarra. See Dkt. No. 82.
Specifically, evidence that Defendant Navarra allegedly made
false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for physician
services. See Id. Presently before the
Court is Defendant Navarra's November 10, 2017 Objection
to the Government's Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence of
Acts “Intrinsic” to the Charged Offense.
See Dkt. No. 88.
before the Court are Defendant Navarra and Defendant
Yrorita's Motions to Adjourn the November 21, 2017 Trial
Date, given the offer of “intrinsic” evidence and
Rule 404(b) Notice regarding Navarra and the Government's
November 2017 productions. See Dkt. Nos. 86, 87.
Court held a hearing on these issues on November 15, 2017 at
9:00 a.m. Ruling from the bench, the Court OVERRULED
Defendant Navarra's Objection to the Government's
Notice of Intent to Offer “Intrinsic” Evidence
and Notice of Rule 404(b) Evidence, and DENIED
Defendants' Motions to Adjourn the November 21, 2017
Trial Date. The Court's reasoning is detailed herein.
Court will overrule Defendant Navarra's Objection to the
Government's Offer of “Intrinsic” Evidence
and Notice of Rule 404(b) Evidence. Second, the Court will
deny Defendant Navarra and Defendant Yrorita's Motions to
Adjourn the November 21, 2017 Trial Date because most of the
material Defendants seek time to review is no longer at
issue. Specifically, the Government's recent productions
principally relate to a witness, Emma King, whom the
Government had originally intended to present at trial. In
its response to Defendants' motions to adjourn the trial,
however, the Government represented that it has elected to
not call that witness.
Court will first address the Government's Notice of
Intent to Offer Evidence of Acts “Intrinsic” to
the Charged Offense, in particular, evidence that Defendant
Navarra submitted claims to Medicare that were allegedly
false and fraudulent.
Government's Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence of Acts
Intrinsic to the Charged Offense
Government contends Navarra submitted false and fraudulent
claims to Medicare for physician services that she allegedly
provided to beneficiaries- beneficiaries who she also
certified for home health care services from Anointed Care
Services LLC (“Anointed”). Dkt. No. 82, p. 1 (Pg.
ID 346). The Government argues evidence of these claims is
admissible because it is intrinsic to, or inextricably
intertwined with evidence of, the offense charged in the
Indictment. Id. Alternatively, the Government offers
this evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2)
to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of
accident.” The Court finds persuasive both of the
to the first argument, United States v. Barnes, 49
F.3d 1144 (6th 1995), is instructive. There, the Sixth
Circuit observed that “extrinsic” crimes or
wrongs are those that have “occurred at different times
and under different circumstances from the offense
charged.” Id. at 1149. Intrinsic crimes or
wrongs, however, “are those that are part of a single
criminal episode.” Id. Consequently,
“Rule 404(b) is not implicated when the other crimes or
wrongs evidence is part of a continuing pattern of illegal
activity. When that circumstance applies, the government has
no duty to disclose the other crimes or wrongs
evidence.” Id. In Barnes, testimony
of an “earlier ‘short' drug ...