JULY 18, 1994:
From 1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m., without the jury present, prosecution and defense argued various points of the trial with the judge. In the end, the defense had a good day in that the judge dismissed counts two and three of the indictment based on lack of jurisdiction in the Eastern District. He was upset with prosecutor Sean O’Shea, saying he was given the impression O’Shea would be presenting a much stronger case on the two distribution counts. The judge said he would consider dropping count one and would have his decision the next day.
JULY 19, 1994:
From 1:30 until 5 p.m., without the jury present, the discussion from the day before continued. A lot of the focus was on the wording of the judge’s instructions to the jury. O’Shea cited cases where a defendant did not need to know all of the details of a conspiracy as long as he knew of its existence and he knowingly joined and participated in it. The judge said that mere knowledge of a conspiracy is insufficient for a conviction. “A person may know a criminal without being a criminal.”
The judge told the defendants that he would say the words “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” so often during his instructions to the jury that even they would be sick of hearing it. The judge responded to the defendant’s request for a change in wording by saying, “That would be at best irrelevant, at worst misleading.”
Jerry McDevitt argued that a doctor can distribute prescription drugs however he wishes to his patients. The judge drew an analogy that if he were at a baseball game with a friend of his who happened to be his doctor, too, and without expressing any concern over his health, the doctor offered him some drugs for money, would McDevitt consider that a legitimate doctor-patient relationship? McDevitt argued yes and the judge vehemently disagreed.
The battles over wording continued with some enthusiastic exchanges among the defense, prosecution, and judge.
