Medical mistakes and criminal intent
Evann Herrell and Keri McFarlane v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Evann Herrell and Keri McFarlane asked the Supreme Court to review whether the jury instructions in their federal prescribing case adequately required proof that they knew their prescribing was unauthorized, given the use of professional standards as evidence and the judge’s refusal to say malpractice alone does not prove criminal knowledge.
- Who it affects
- The Supreme Court will not review Herrell and McFarlane's challenge; its order makes no ruling on their jury-instruction claim.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review), so it did not decide that question.
The dispute concerns how jurors assess a doctor's knowledge when prosecutors use professional prescribing standards as evidence.
Question presented
Whether, after Ruan v. United States , 597 U.S. 450 (2022), a jury instruction requiring proof that a physician knew the prescribing was unauthorized adequately protects § 841‘s subjective mens rea requirement when the Government relies on objective professional standards as evidence of knowledge and the district court refuses a requested instruction explaining that malpractice and deviations from the standard of care do not themselves establish criminal knowledge?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.