Woody and Kathy Medlock ran a medical ambulance company. They transported patients to and from hospitals and clinics for treatments like kidney dialysis, where use of an ambulance was required. Medicare reimbursed them for such transportation. The Medlocks made several billings to Medicare for transportation of named patients that misrepresented the nature of the transportation, e.g. saying a stretcher was used when it wasn’t, or “double loading” patients but billing for two ambulance runs. They were charged with both health-care fraud and aggravated identity theft under federal statutes. Should they be convicted of both crimes? See United States v. Medlock, 792 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2015), cert denied 136 S. Ct. 601 (2015)
In every state, the penalty for possession of controlled substances with the intent to deliver (sell) is much greater than possession for personal use. As noted in this chapter, proof of intent to deliver is frequently done by circumstantial evidence. Is there sufficient evidence for proof of intent if: (1) the police observe a “frantic” woman flag down defendant’s SUV, reach into the SUV and hand something to the driver, and take something from the driver? The driver is subsequently stopped and police find 2.5 grams of crack cocaine hidden in the ceiling of the SUV. (2) The police search the SUV and find neither cash nor packaging, nor do they find drug paraphernalia like a crack pipe. If this isn’t enough proof, what additional factors convinced the court the defendant intended to sell the crack cocaine in State v. Stewart, 2015 WL 4714829 (Minn. App. 2015)?
