Ronald Beasley, a pharmacist-in-charge at a Florida pharmacy, was indicted and convicted of conspiracy to commit health-care fraud and three counts of health-care fraud. The government alleged that Beasley defrauded Medicare by billing for compound medications using unreimbursable bulk ingredients while claiming they were reimbursable forms, and by billing for prescriptions that were never filled. During the trial, the government introduced evidence that Beasley had stolen approximately $200,000 in cash from the pharmacy, which Beasley argued was inadmissible character evidence. Additionally, a key witness, the pharmacy's co-owner Mehrshid Khatami, invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. Beasley moved for a new trial after his co-conspirator, Nava Hajiabadi, filed a sentencing memorandum arguing that her case was less severe because she treated real patients, not phantom ones. Beasley claimed this was new evidence that would have changed his defense strategy.
The Eleventh Circuit addressed four primary issues. First, regarding the motion for a new trial, the court reasoned that Hajiabadi's sentencing memorandum was an argument, not evidence, and even if considered evidence, it was not newly discovered because her position on treating real patients was known during trial. The court noted that Beasley could have cross-examined her on this point and that the memorandum would have been merely cumulative. Second, the court upheld the admission of the uncharged theft evidence. The court determined the evidence was intrinsic, not governed by Rule 404(b), because it was necessary to complete the story of the crime. Beasley had argued he lacked a motive to commit fraud because he was a salaried employee; the theft evidence rebutted this by showing he had a financial motive, feeling 'undervalued and underappreciated.' Third, the court rejected the claim that the government violated Beasley's right to present a complete defense by refusing to grant Khatami immunity. The court explained that the power to grant immunity resides exclusively in the Executive Branch, and a defendant cannot compel a witness to testify when they have properly invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege. The court also found Beasley's Equal Protection and Confrontation Clause arguments forfeited or without merit. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's decision not to hold an in-camera hearing, noting that the record already contained sufficient, uncontested information to confirm Khatami's privilege invocation.
Ronald Beasley's conviction for health-care fraud and conspiracy stands. The decision reinforces the high bar for granting new trials based on post-trial arguments by co-defendants and clarifies that evidence of uncharged misconduct is admissible as intrinsic evidence when it explains a defendant's motive. It also confirms that courts cannot compel the government to grant immunity to witnesses, leaving the decision to the Executive Branch, and that in-camera hearings are not required when the record sufficiently establishes a witness's valid invocation of the Fifth Amendment.