The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
The Court has before it motions for acquittal or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The motions are fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motions.
Defendants Bret Hamilton and Vanessa Cattanea were charged with health care fraud and aiding and abetting health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 and 2. The charges related to various billings to Medicaid by Teton Family Services, Inc., a mental health clinic providing partial care services to children in Pocatello, Blackfoot, and American Falls, Idaho.
A jury returned verdicts of guilty against Hamilton on 55 of 72 counts and verdicts of guilty against Cattanea on 76 of 84 counts. Both defendants filed motions for acquittal or, in the alternative, new trial.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 29, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if, after examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, no rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Odom, 329 F.3d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir. 2003). Circumstantial evidence alone, and the inferences that can be drawn from circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient to sustain a conviction. United States v. Yoshida, 303 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution requires the Court to "presume . . . that the trier of fact resolved any . . . conflicting inferences in favor of the prosecution. " United States v. Rosales, 516 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 2008). The reviewing court "must respect the exclusive province of the fact finder to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts." United States v. Hubbard, 96 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 33 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, a Court may grant a new trial if the interests of justice so require "in those exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict." United States v. Rush, 749 F.2d 1369, 1371 (9th Cir. 1984). In considering a motion for a new trial, the Court need not draw inferences from the evidence in favor of the United States and may independently assess the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1097 (9th Cir. 2000).
Jury Instruction on Good Faith
Defendant Cattanea argues that the Court's failure to give a "good faith" instruction allowed the jury to convict without focusing on specific intent. Where the district court adequately instructs the jury on the intent to defraud, it need not also instruct the jury regarding good faith. United States v. Dees, 34 F.3d 838, 842 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court gave an instruction on the intent to defraud, and so determined at the jury instruction conference, after hearing argument, that the "good faith" instruction was not necessary. The Court reaffirms that decision here.
Defendant Cattanea argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. The Court denied her motion on this ground after the Government's case-in-chief, and can find no reason to change that decision. See Minute Entry (docket no. 78). Examined under either the standard applicable ...