US v. Josephine Adams, No. 13-4371 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4371 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00054-JPB-JES-2) Argued: March 20, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014 Before GREGORY and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: John Anthony Carr, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Michael D. Stein, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In abused this its appeal, we discretion consider in whether denying a the district defendant s court motion to continue her trial to present exculpatory testimony from her codefendant husband, who previously deemed incompetent to stand trial. had been hospitalized and Upon our review, we vacate the district court s judgment. I. Dr. Barton Joseph Adams, the husband of appellant Josephine Artillaga Adams (Mrs. Adams), owned and operated management medical practice in West Virginia. a pain In 2008, Dr. Adams was indicted on charges of health care fraud for allegedly submitting false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. However, before he could be tried on those charges, the district court determined that Dr. Adams was suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to understand the proceedings against him. In June 2011, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), the court committed Dr. Adams to the Attorney General s custody for hospitalization for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward. (Emphasis in original.) 2 In September 2011, Dr. and Mrs. Adams were charged in a single indictment alleging sixteen justice and related charges. counts of obstruction of These charges arose from Dr. and Mrs. Adams acts occurring between 2007 and 2009 involving the alleged concealment of financial proceeds from the underlying health care fraud. The district court severed the defendants trials based on Mrs. Adams speedy trial rights and the court s earlier determination that Dr. Adams was incompetent to stand trial. On November 1, 2011, the grand jury issued a superseding indictment against both parties that reflected only minor factual changes. On November 5, 2011, Mrs. Adams filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum seeking the presence of Dr. Adams to offer exculpatory evidence at her trial. Although the government did not oppose the petition, Dr. Adams counsel filed a motion requesting that the petition be quashed. At a November 7, 2011 hearing, Dr. Adams counsel informed the court that Dr. Adams repeatedly had indicated that he wanted to testify counsel, at Dr. Mrs. Adams Adams had trial. concluded According that his to Dr. testimony Adams would exonerate [Mrs. Adams] as it would tend to prove that she had no actual knowledge of the charged transactions. Nonetheless, Dr. Adams not counsel asserted that Dr. 3 Adams was capable of rationally consulting with counsel to determine whether to waive his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The district court denied Mrs. Adams petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum by order dated November 8, 2011. In its order, the court stated that given Dr. Barton Adams current status as incompetent to stand trial and [his] inability to cooperate with his attorney, a decision permitting Dr. Adams counsel to testify under the could Sixth potentially Amendment, as violate well his as right his to Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Three days later, on Friday, November 11, 2011, Mrs. Adams filed a motion to declared competent. 1 continue her trial until Dr. Adams was On Monday, November 14, 2011, the first day of Mrs. Adams trial, the district court denied her continuance motion and concluded that the motion was filed in bad faith. In explaining its ruling, the district court stated, in part, that Dr. Adams had been sent away for the four-month period and that it is not certain when or whether Doctor Adams would ever be competent to assist in the preparation of his defense. The court also observed that the motion to continue was filed 1 In her motion, Mrs. Adams waived application of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174. 4 immediately before trial, and that interpreters and jurors already had been designated. After a three-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all sixteen counts alleged in the indictment. The district court entered a judgment order, and later denied Mrs. Adams post-trial motions for a new trial and for dismissal of the indictment. Two months after Mrs. Adams trial, on January 24, 2012, the warden committed at filed the a medical center certificate where with Dr. the Adams district had been court in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e), indicating that Dr. Adams was now competent to stand trial. After holding a hearing, the competent district court found Dr. Adams and ultimately accepted his guilty plea to a reduced number of charges. See United States v. Adams, No. 13-4203, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4613, at *1-2 (4th Cir. March 12, 2014) (per curiam, unpublished). In May 2013, the district court sentenced Mrs. Adams to a period of three years probation for the obstruction of justice convictions. Mrs. Adams timely filed the present appeal. II. Mrs. Adams argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her continuance motion, because the court improperly speculated that Dr. 5 Adams remained incompetent on November 14, 2011, the date of Mrs. Adams trial. In response, the government contends that Mrs. Adams failed to demonstrate two factors necessary to obtain a continuance for production of a witness. The government asserts that, under the holding in United States v. Clinger, 681 F.2d 221, 223 (4th Cir. 1982), Mrs. Adams was required, but failed, to show the content of Dr. Adams expected testimony and that Dr. Adams could probably be obtained to testify at Mrs. Adams trial. We disagree with the government s position. We review a district court s denial of a continuance motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 739 (4th Cir. 2006). And, even when a court engages in such an abuse, the defendant also must show that the error specifically prejudiced her case. Id. (quoting United States v. Hedgepeth, 418 F.3d 411, 419 (4th Cir. 2005)). When a party requests a continuance to secure the attendance of a witness, the moving party must show: (1) the name of the witness; (2) the expected content of the witness s testimony; (3) how such testimony will be relevant to the issues at trial; (4) that the witness can probably be obtained if the continuance is granted; and (5) that the moving party acted with due diligence to obtain the witness s attendance at trial. at 223 easily (citation conclude omitted). that Mrs. After Adams 6 Clinger, 681 F.2d reviewing satisfied the the record, three we Clinger factors that are not disputed on appeal, namely, identifying Dr. Adams, demonstrating that his testimony would be relevant, and acting with diligence to secure his presence at trial. We also conclude that Mrs. Adams sufficiently demonstrated the nature of her husband s expected testimony in light of the circumstances of this case. Dr. Adams was addressing prepared Mrs. Adams The parties did not dispute that to provide lack of exculpatory knowledge of her testimony husband s alleged fraud, and his alleged concealment of fraud proceeds. Counsel for informed the exonerate Mrs. Adams, court Mrs. as that Adams well Dr. and as Adams would counsel for expected demonstrate knowledge of the charged transactions. Dr. Adams, testimony that she would had no The district court did not address the adequacy of Mrs. Adams proffer in ruling on the request for a continuance. Accordingly, we conclude that Mrs. Adams satisfied this Clinger factor. We therefore turn to address the remaining Clinger factor, namely, whether Mrs. Adams showed that Dr. Adams probably could be obtained to testify if the trial were continued. the outset, ability to we recognize satisfy this the obstacle factor due posed to her to Mrs. husband s At Adams civil commitment. As the government acknowledges, Mrs. Adams could not whether predict competence. Dr. However, Adams when she 7 would ever filed her be restored motion for to a continuance district on November court had 11, 2011, ordered in Mrs. June Adams 2011 knew that that Dr. the Adams commitment extend for a reasonable period not to exceed four months. Adams After that time, the court would determine whether Dr. competency had been restored or was likely to be restored. Although the record does not indicate when Dr. Adams actually was hospitalized, an updated report on his condition was required facility s by the warden court s and June medical 2011 order. personnel Further, deemed Dr. the Adams competent in January 2012, only two months after Mrs. Adams conviction. Rather updated than status of continuing Dr. Mrs. Adams Adams mental trial to condition, obtain the an district court denied the continuance based on the court s five-month-old finding regarding Dr. Adams competency. While the court properly observed that Mrs. Adams motion to continue was filed on the eve of trial, we nonetheless conclude that under the circumstances of this case, it was incumbent on the district court to informed continue finding condition. the trial regarding until the the court could present state of Dr. make an Adams See id. at 224 (when a court cannot make a necessary finding with exactness, the court should grant a continuance to receive evidence on that subject). 8 We further conclude that the district court s failure to continue the trial prejudiced Mrs. Adams. F.3d at presented 739 by (citation the omitted). government at The trial See Williams, 445 evidence focused and on arguments Mrs. Adams involvement in, and knowledge of, the financial transactions at issue, as well as her knowledge of Dr. Adams underlying health care fraud. Therefore, Dr. Adams expected testimony would have been highly probative regarding his wife s role in the charged offenses. Accordingly, we conclude that under the facts and circumstances presented, the district court abused its discretion in denying Mrs. Adams motion for a continuance. 2 III. For these reasons, we vacate Mrs. Adams conviction, and remand the case for a new trial. VACATED AND REMANDED 2 Because we vacate Mrs. Adams conviction, we do address the additional arguments that she raises on appeal. 9 not
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
