Originally published May 11, 2011
On May 10, 2011, a federal district court judge took the rare
action of acquitting former GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK")
in-house counsel Lauren Stevens of all criminal charges at the
close of the government's case. The charges against Stevens
stemmed from a 2002 FDA investigation into whether GSK improperly
promoted the anti-depressant Wellbutrin for weight loss, an
unapproved use. In a case jointly brought by the U.S. Attorney for
the District of Massachusetts and the Justice Department's
Office of Consumer Litigation in Washington, D.C., the government
alleged that Stevens covered up unfavorable documents and
information from the FDA. A six-count indictment charged Stevens
with Obstruction of a Proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1512; Falsification/Concealment of Documents in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1519; and four counts of False Statements in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
After the government rested its prosecution and before Stevens
put on her defense, Judge Roger W. Titus of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland granted Stevens' motion for
acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
This procedurally uncommon move – it was the judge's
first time granting such a motion in his 7 ½ years on the
bench – in all likelihood puts an end to the Stevens
case, as the Justice Department probably cannot appeal it under the
Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy rule.
Judge Titus explained, "I conclude on the basis of the
record before me that only with a jaundiced eye and with an
inference of guilt that's inconsistent with the presumption of
innocence could a reasonable jury ever convict this
defendant."
If it had been successful, this prosecution of in-house counsel
would have had significant repercussions on attorney-client
privilege. Judge Titus recognized these consequences, opining,
"[T]here are serious implications for the practice of law
generated by this prosecution. . . . There is an enormous potential
for abuse in allowing prosecution of an attorney for the giving of
legal advice. I conclude that the defendant in this case should
never have been prosecuted and she should be permitted to resume
her career."
The courtroom transcript of this decision is available for download
here.
This update is for information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. Under the rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered as advertising.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.