Mangino Verdict II - Conviction

Dr. Mangino Verdict II - Conviction and Support; Alex DeLuca; War on Doctors/Pain Crisis blog of the Pain Relief Network; 2007-07-10. [see also: Mangino Verdict I - Is Treating Pain a Crime?]

From New Castle, PA comes the following sad story from Debbie Morris, who has been doing a pretty good job covering the prosecution of Dr. Mangino thus far, Pain Doctor Guilty of Half the Charges; 2000-07-06:

“After deliberating almost 16 hours, a jury convicted Dr. William Mangino of nine felony charges yesterday afternoon [including] five violations of the state drug act, three violations of Medicaid fraud and one charge of conspiracy to violate the drug act…
“Mangino, his shaggy, graying hair falling over the collar of his brown wool sport jacket, was handcuffed [and] is in the Lawrence County jail awaiting sentencing. [Defense counsel] Michaelson said Mangino is unlikely to post bond, [that] he had no income after he gave up his license to write prescriptions as a condition of his prior bail. [Lead defense attorney] Leslie said he intends to appeal the verdict. “It’s apparently a compromise,” Leslie said. “They split (the counts) in half, and they even left them in alphabetical order to do it.””

I find that only very rarely do press accounts give a good sense of trial proceedings. John Tierney’s coverage of the Hurwitz re-trial would be an outstanding exception. Luckily for those of us who want to understand what happened in Mangino, assistant counsel and Mangino friend, Mr. Michaelson, has sent out an update communique, 2007-07-09, to Dr. Mangino’s family, friends, and supporters. It includes an enlightening defense legal brief known as an Omnibus Motion, entitled, Motion For a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty Or In the Alternative, Request For Additional Jury Instructions (full text PDF). Mr. Michaelson explains the genesis and purpose of this brief:

“On Tuesday, after 10 hours of deliberation, it was my belief that the Jury was confused about the Law (as well they should have been, because it SHOULD be overturned as being “Void for Vagueness”- among other reasons).

“I spent all day Wednesday July 4th preparing the attached “Omni” Motion, which hopefully will help you to understand the confusion. The Judge refused to Dismiss the case, as I requested, and also refused to give the Jury any of the additional instructions I requested.”

It is a very interesting document, not too long, and not encumbered with too much legal jargon. Students of war-on-doctors prosecutions, and anyone interested in understanding the Mangio verdict as we continue to analyze it on this blog, might want to take a minute to read it. Mangio’s Omnibus Motion gives a sense of the issues of law and principle that were grappled with in this trial. Thank you to Mr. Michaelson and the Mangino defense for sharing this with us; highly recommended.

The discussion about what jury instructions should be is fascinating, and quite Mangino’esque in its relentless thoroughness, but is too complex to abstract right now. Instead, let me share the follow brief excerpt from the “Motion for a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty” section of the brief:

“… Regarding the CONSPIRACY charges AND their application to the Vagueness Issue:

1. “Intent” (mens rea) is required for a criminal conviction

2. This VAGUE Statute, by its’ very language, requires the jury to find the defendant guilty UNLESS his conduct (or lack thereof) regarding “treatment principles” is found to be “acceptable” by “a responsible segment of the medical community.”

3. It does not require intent or mens rea,

4. But rather appears to be one more resembling “Misfeasance.”

5. And it shifts the burden of proof upon the defendant to PROVE that his conduct was NOT criminal, and WAS and IS “acceptable” by a “Responsible segment of the medical community.”

6. The statute applies a criminal standard to what should be a civil violation, if any, and is even more confusing (and “Vague” by its legal definition) by applying a criminal standard to conduct which requires proof of “acceptability” by a “responsible segment of the medical profession” WITHOUT:

A. defining either the terms “acceptable” OR regarding the term “responsible segment of the medical profession.” …”

Because the Pain Relief Network has been somewhat involved in Dr. Mangino’s defense, and because Dr. Mangino is a principled, generous man and a vocal critic of the war on doctors who is willing to share the details of his trial and defense with us in the hopes of helping the Pain Relief movement and of contributing to the defense of the next pain doctor to go under the drug war microscope, we here at PRN’s War on Doctors/Pain Crisis blog will be able to share with our fellow students and advocates an inside look on drug war prosecutions of pain doctors in the weeks ahead. Stay tuned.

A date for Sentencing has not yet been set, but the guess is sometime in September, and the Mangino defense team has promised to keep us posted.

“Mangino Verdict III” which I will post very soon, will focus on the Bail issues the currently incarcerated William Mangino faces, about a Mangino Defense Fund that has been established, and about concrete things we can all do to help this good man and good doctor in his darkest hour.

Knowing William a little, I can assure you very literally, that he would do whatever he could, with a passion, to help you and me were we the ones in lock up today for the crime of practicing ethical pain medicine.

[END]