Defendants Seek Ban on Patient Harm Testimony

By Walter F. Roche Jr.

Citing the risk of unfair prejudice, nine remaining defendants in the deadly fungal meningitis criminal case are asking a federal judge to bar the use of any evidence of harm caused to victims of the 2012 outbreak which sickened nearly 800 patients, killing 76 of them.
In a joint motion filed today in U.S. District Court in Boston, Mass., lawyers for the defendants said their clients have not been charged with playing any role in the production of the fungus laden steroids that caused the deadly outbreak. Therefore such evidence is irrelevant and would be a waste of the jury's time, the motion states.
In a separate motion, Gregory Conigliaro, who was a vice president and part owner of the company that produced the tainted steroids, asked U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns to allow his lawyers to file a secret motion to sever his trial from the other remaining defendants.
"Mr. Conigliaro submits that it is not appropriate for the other defendants, nor the general public, to have access to Mr. Conigliaro's description of those antagonistic defenses," his motion states.
Conigliaro and the other eight are scheduled for trial in September. They were among 14 indicted following a two year probe of the outbreak caused by fungus ridden methylprednisolone acetate produced at the now defunct New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Mass.,
Two of those defendants, Barry J. Cadden and Glenn A. Chin, are now serving lengthy prison sentences following their conviction on racketeering, mail fraud and other related charges.
The motion to exclude evidence cites the fact that in the Cadden and Chin trials Stearns limited the testimony and evidence of patient harm. That was so even though they were both charged with second degree murder in the deaths of some outbreak victims. Both were ultimately cleared of the murder charges.
The remaining defendants were not alleged to "have any responsibility whatsoever for any methylprednisolone related act or omission that caused harm to patients," the motion states, adding, "They are not charged with killing or injuring anyone."
"Such evidence would be even more prejudicial here," the motion states, citing the "risk of seriously confusing the issues."
"This trial will be lengthy and complex as it is and there is no need to prolong or taint it through the introducton of unfairly prejudicial evidence which is irrelevant to the facts at hand," the motion concludes.
Contact:wfrochejr999@gmail.com
.