Background
Samuel Harris operated a medical marketing firm that paid doctors and employees on a per-patient basis to refer patients for cancer screening tests funded by Medicare and Medicaid. This scheme violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits remuneration for referrals. Harris was convicted on three counts of violating the statute and sentenced to thirty months in prison.
The court’s reasoning
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the advice-of-counsel jury instruction. Harris failed to fully disclose that he paid employees per patient, a fact central to the legality of his business. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial after a prosecutor made an improper remark about the identity of Harris’s counsel, noting the remark was isolated, the evidence was strong, and the jury was properly instructed to disregard it.
The problem for Harris is that he failed to disclose all pertinent facts to his attorney.
United States v. Harris, No. 25-5540 (6th Cir. June 16, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that defendants cannot claim reliance on legal advice when they withhold critical facts that would alter the legal analysis.