United States of America v. Jay M. Sadrinia, D.M.D.

Covington, Kentucky criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with prescribing a controlled substance without a legitimate medical purpose resulting in her death, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).



Sadrinia practiced dentistry for nearly 30 years. In the summer of 2020, he owned four dental offices in northern Kentucky. Three of those offices were for general practice; the fourth—Tri-State Implant and Sedation Dentistry—was devoted to advanced surgical procedures. Sadrinia usually performed surgeries himself, with his associates handling more

routine dental work. Sadrinia was licensed in Kentucky to prescribe controlled substances to his patients.



* * *



The element at issue in Sadrinia's case was knowledge. Unlike most defendants in

§ 841(a) prosecutions, Sadrinia was authorized to prescribe controlled substances. In his case,

therefore, the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sadrinia knew

his prescriptions were unauthorized—meaning that they lacked a "legitimate medical purpose”

and were outside "the usual course of his professional practice.” See Ruan v. United States, 597

U.S. 450, 454 (2022) (quoting 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) (2021))



* * *



Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible as propensity evidence—that

is, "to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted

in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Evidence that a defendant sold

drugs nine years before, for example, is not admissible to prove that he did so as charged in the

case at hand. See, e.g., Jenkins, 593 F.3d at 484-85. But evidence of other bad acts may be

admitted for other purposes, such as proving a defendant's knowledge or intent. Fed. R. Evid.

404(b)(2). Even when the government seeks to admit such evidence for a permissible purpose,

however, the government must give "reasonable notice” of its intent to do so. Fed. R. Evid.

404(b)(3). And here, as to these witnesses, the district court held that the government's notice

was not reasonable.



* * *

Reversed.