Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (PDF); by William Mangino II, petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; 2010.
Omnibus Motion for Directed Verdict or Alternative Jury Instructions – Mangino; 2007
Dr. William Mangino is serving 8 1/2 to 20 years in prison having been convicted of 9 felony charges including 5 violations of the state drug act, three violations of Medicaid fraud, and one charge of conspiracy to violate the drug act. He wrote and filed this Petition and forwarded it to me to be disseminated. The document can be reproduced, but not altered.
His case has been well covered here and on Drug War Chronicle. Mangino Verdict I: Is Treating Pain a Crime?; Mangino Verdict II – Conviction; Mangino Sentencing: a Crime-less Conviction (by Christine Heberle); and Another Pain Doctor on the Ropes (by David Borden, Drug War Chronicle.)
Dr. Mangino writes that he is “currently preparing a review article which outlines – in depth – every single type of “irrelevant” medical standard used in about 50-60 various prosecutions over the past 40-50 years – and how and why these standards are misapplied, with case citations.”
What follows is a brief excerpt – the opening paragraphs – of Mangino’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. ..alex… Alex DeLuca, M.D.
1- Should “criminal standards” in illegal prescribing be “undercover penetration” and “direct patient testimony”?
2- Was petitioner improperly convicted under the Pennsylvania statute for illegally dispensing controlled substances?
3- Were petitioner’s medical records improperly excluded as evidence?
4-Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion by not ruling in favor of defense motion for a directed verdict of not guilty?
5- Did the Trial Court commit plain error by not instructing jurors on all of the elements of the crime?
6- Should the Trial Court have instructed jurors that “good faith” was an element of the crime to be disproved?
7- Did Doctor Mangino deserve a “good-faith” instruction to jurors since he was not charged with violating “good-faith”?
8- Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion or commit plain error by not instructing jurors that opioid prescribing guidelines have no force in the law.
9 – Was “the statute” vague as applied to petitioner’s prescribing and treatment principles?
The treatment of chronic pain is an issue of national importance. If petitioner’s conviction is allowed to stand then any single opioid prescription can be called into question based upon misconceptions which should not be allowed to permeate the atmosphere of The American Courtroom.
These misconceptions are further fostered when prosecutors employ irrelevant medical standards which jurors assume ascribe criminal liability. Even courts also confuse civil medical with criminal standards.
Pain specialists, by training and experience, are compelled to alleviate the suffering which always accompanies chronic pain. They become easier targets for politically motivated or overzealous prosecutions.
As the specialist’s knowledge of the biochemical and genetic intricasies underlying the genesis of the pain-state increases, he is more willing to prescribe the medications most likely to alleviate this suffering. The jury pool is unlikely to look upon this level of prescribing favorably.