text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
October 6, 2006
Lead Plaintiff Joseph J. Masters ("Plaintiff" or "Masters") brings this putative class action alleging that GlaxoSmithkline ("GSK") and GSK CEO and Chairman Jean-Pierre Garnier ("Garnier") (collectively "Defendants") violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)(1994), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (2001), by making various false and misleading statements resulting in damages to GSK investors during the class period. Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted on grounds, inter alia, that certain claims are time-barred, and that Plaintiff has failed to plead fraud with particularity, failed to allege scienter, and failed to allege loss causation. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion (dkt. no. 13) is granted, and the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") is dismissed with prejudice.
I. Background
This is a putative class action filed on behalf of
individuals who acquired GSK common stock or American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period from December 27, 2000 to August 5, 2004 (the "Class Period"). (SAC ¶ 9). Plaintiff alleges that he acquired GSK securities during the Class Period and suffered damages as a result. (SAC ¶ 2). More specifically, according to his class representative certifications, Masters purchased 1,400 shares of GSK on September 28, 2001 at a share price of $56.28 and sold the same number of shares on June 13, 2002 at a price of $39.43. Plaintiff purchased an additional 350 shares of GSK on February 17, 2004 at a share price of $42.96 and had not sold those shares as of May 10, 2005.
GSK is a public company whose securities trade on the New York and London Stock Exchanges. (SAC ¶ 3). Garnier was CEO and Chairman of GSK throughout the Class Period. (SAC ¶ 4). The SAC alleges that on February 19, 2004, Garnier sold 142,250 shares of GSK stock for $6,143,293 based on material non-public information. (SAC ¶ 279).*fn1
A. Procedural History
The initial complaint in this action was filed on April 12, 2005. Two additional actions, No. 05-cv-3885 and No. 05-cv-4723, were brought in this district on April 18, 2005 and May 16, 2005, respectively. A fourth related action, No. 05-cv-6231, was transferred here from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
By order dated July 25, 2005, this Court consolidated all four actions and granted Masters' unopposed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. This Court also set up a procedure whereby Plaintiff was directed to serve a consolidated amended complaint, Defendants were to advise Plaintiff of perceived deficiencies, i.e., grounds for a motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file a second amended complaint with the understanding that no further amendments would be permitted. The parties availed themselves of this procedure, and the SAC was docketed on April 6, 2006.
B. The Second Amended Complaint
The SAC alleges violations of the Exchange Act in two counts. The first count alleges that Defendants violated section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by, inter alia, making untrue statements of material fact that resulted in damages to Plaintiff and the class. (SAC ¶¶ 282-286). The second count alleges control person liability under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as to Defendant Garnier. (SAC ¶¶ 287-291).
Broadly speaking, the SAC alleges that GSK violated the Exchange Act in four ways: 1) by misrepresenting the safety and efficacy of the use of its drug Paxil in children (the "Paxil Pediatric Allegations"); 2) by making false statements and omissions regarding the viability of GSK's patents for Paxil and Augmentin and engaging in a course of frivolous litigation with respect to those patents (the "Patent Allegations"); 3) by suppressing information about Paxil's addictiveness and withdrawal effects (the "Paxil Withdrawal Allegations"); and 4) by violating the Federal False Claims Act by overcharging Medicare and Medicaid for GSK's pharmaceutical products, resulting in multiple lawsuits against GSK (the "False Claims Act Allegations"). The SAC also alleges that Garnier sold GSK stock based on material, non-public information (the "Insider Trading Allegations"). (SAC ¶ 279).
1. The Paxil Pediatric Allegations
GSK manufactured and sold paroxetine under the name Paxil in the United States and Seroxat in Great Britain (hereinafter "Paxil") throughout the Class period. (SAC ¶ 18). Paxil is a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor ("SSRI") that is approved by the FDA for treatment of depression, anxiety and other conditions in adults. (Id.). Paxil has not been approved by the FDA for treatment of any conditions in children or adolescents. (Id.). Physicians, however, are permitted to prescribe FDA-approved drugs for non-FDA-approved uses where, through the exercise of independent judgment, they determine that the prescription is appropriate. (Id.). This practice is referred to as an "off-label" use. (Id.). GSK reported Paxil sales of £1.55 billion for the year 2000. (SAC ¶ 31). In 2002, Paxil prescriptions to treat children and adolescents totaled $55 million in the United States and "much more" worldwide. (SAC ¶ 19).
The SAC alleges that GSK misrepresented the safety and efficacy of Paxil in treating Major Depressive Disorder ("MDD") in children by allowing positive information about Paxil to be disclosed publicly but withholding or concealing negative information. (SAC ¶ 20). More specifically, the SAC alleges that on various occasions prior to and during the Class Period, research scientists sponsored by or known to GSK published articles and presented posters at research conferences reporting on the safety and efficacy of Paxil for treatment of children and adolescents. (SAC ¶¶ 22-29, 32-47).
The SAC also alleges that GSK made misrepresentations about Paxil by allowing dissemination of a study that showed mixed results about the safety and efficacy of Paxil but withholding the results of studies that had negative results. (SAC ¶¶ 58-80). Two out of three placebo-controlled studies conducted by GSK, studies 377 and 701, showed no statistically significant difference between the effectiveness of Paxil and the effectiveness of the placebo. (SAC ¶ 67). A third study, study 329, presented a mixed picture, with Paxil failing to outperform the placebo on two primary measures of efficacy but outperforming the placebo on three out of five secondary measures of efficacy. (SAC ¶ 68). In all three studies, suicidal thoughts and acts, as well as mood swings and crying (behavior coded as "emotional lability") were significantly higher in the Paxil group compared to the placebo group. (SAC ¶ 70). Specifically, study 329 showed emotional lability in 6.5% of the Paxil group compared with 1.1% of the control group. (Id.); study 377 showed emotional lability in 4.4.% of the Paxil group compared with 3.2% of the control group; and study 701 showed emotional lability in 3.6% of the Paxil group compared with 1.4% of the control group. (Id.)
The SAC alleges that GSK disseminated the results of study 329, concealing or downplaying its negative aspects, but suppressed dissemination of the other studies. (SAC ¶¶ 58-62, 73-80). After GSK submitted studies 329, 377 and 701 to the FDA in connection with an application for approval of Paxil to treat Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ("OCD") in children and adolescents, various regulatory agencies in the United States and abroad issued warnings against the use of Paxil in children and adolescents. (SAC ¶¶ 81-90).
With regard to loss causation, the SAC specifies two price drops of GSK securities following the release of information to the public about Paxil's adverse effects on children. On June 2, 2004, the New York State Attorney General announced a lawsuit against GSK based on suppression of the adverse pediatric studies, resulting in a price drop from $42.77 to $41.39, or $1.38 per share, on that date. (SAC ¶ 48). On December 9, 2004, the ABC News program Primetime Live aired a story about the adverse effects of Paxil on children, resulting in a stock price drop from $45.08 to $44.82, or 23 cents per share, the following day. (SAC ¶ 51).
2. The Paxil Withdrawal Allegations
The SAC alleges that GSK engaged in a "disinformation campaign" designed to suppress information about the withdrawal effects of Paxil. (SAC ¶ 238). The SAC alleges that GSK knew from pre-marketing studies that Paxil had higher addictive potential than other SSRIs. (SAC ¶¶ 240-242). Despite this alleged awareness, GSK included in its promotional literature the following statement: "Paxil belongs to a class of medications called SSRIs, which have not been shown to be associated with addiction." (SAC ¶ 243). The SAC catalogues 18 scientific studies or reports between 1993 and 2000 documenting withdrawal symptoms as a result of Paxil discontinuation, none of which was acted upon. (SAC ¶¶ 246-263).
In August 2001, a class action was filed in California on behalf of consumers addicted to Paxil. (SAC ¶ 238). The SAC alleges that on September 6, 2001, GSK's share price fell from $45.14 to $44.10, or $1.04 per share, on news of the class action suit alleging that Paxil caused withdrawal symptoms. (SAC ¶ 264). In December 2001, the FDA ordered GSK to begin warning patients about Paxil's withdrawal symptoms, and the company rewrote Paxil's warning label to include "discontinuation effects." (SAC ¶ 265).
3. The Patent Allegations
Broadly speaking, the Patent Allegations allege that GSK misled investors by issuing statements misrepresenting the validity and duration of GSK's patents for Paxil and Augmentin. The Patent Allegations allege that GSK engaged in a course of baseless patent filings and frivolous patent litigation.
With regard to Augmentin, the SAC alleges that in a July 26, 2000 Financial Times article, Garnier stated that a newly granted patent on Augmentin would extend patent protection to 2013. (SAC ¶ 132). After a federal court ruled on February 2, 2002 that GSK lost certain patent protections for Augmentin, Garnier appeared for a CNBC interview and said, "We are very confident we can defend our patents." (SAC ¶ 134). Garnier also stated, "The PTO confirmed that those patent[s] were genuine, they were rock solid. And we feel that the courts eventually will recognize the letter of the law and give us the added protection for Augmentin." (Id.). On February 25, 2002, a federal district court ruled that GSK's '380 patent for Augmentin was invalid. (SAC ¶ 137). On November 23, 2003, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court's ruling that GSK did not have patent protection for Augmentin. (SAC ¶ 141).
Regarding loss causation, the SAC alleges that after a March 13, 2002 announcement that GSK had lost part of its court battle over Augmentin, GSK's share price fell from $48.81 on March 13, 2002 to $48.27 on March 14, 2002, and to $47.62 on March 15, 2002, a total of $1.19 per share in two days. (SAC ¶ 138). When GSK announced on May 23, 2003 that it lost patent protection for Augmentin completely, GSK's share price fell from $41.47 to $38.03, or $3.44 per share. (SAC ¶¶ 139-140, 174-175).
The SAC alleges that GSK represented in its Form 20-F for the years 1999 through 2001 that its patent protection for Paxil expired in 2006. (SAC ¶¶ 99, 103). The SAC alleges that this representation was false because the patent protection was based upon "evergreening," i.e., obtaining frivolous patents in order to extend patent life. (SAC ¶ 111). More specifically, the SAC alleges that GSK attempted to protect Paxil from generic competition by filing additional patents "concerning chemical properties of the molecule that have nothing to do with its effectiveness." (Id.).
The SAC alleges that GSK filed numerous baseless patent infringement lawsuits against competitors who sought to market generic forms of Paxil. (SAC ¶¶ 104-108, 158-161, 202-227). With regard to loss causation, the SAC describes six stock price drops following negative news about Paxil's patent protection.
After the Financial Times reported on Saturday July 13, 2002 that the German company BASF prevailed in court and won the right to produce generic versions of Paxil, GSK shares fell from $38.15 to $36.65 on Monday July 15, 2002. (SAC ¶ 165). When GSK announced on July 23, 2002 that it lost a Paxil patent case in the United States, GSK's stock fell from $34.02 to $32.86, or $1.16 per share. (SAC ¶ 166). On October 24, 2002, GSK's share price dropped from $41.34 to $39.27, or $2.07 per share, on news that GSK had reserved £145 million for legal costs. (SAC ¶ 169). Following a court ruling on March 4, 2003 that competitor Apotex did not infringe GSK's patent on Paxil, GSK's stock price fell from $35.27 to $34.15, or $1.12 per share. (SAC ¶ 173). When Apotex received FDA approval on July 31, 2003 to market a generic version of Paxil, GSK's stock price fell from $39.22 to $37.40, or $1.82 per share. Finally, when GSK announced on February 12, 2004 that Paxil sales were down by 40% because of generic competition, GSK's share price fell from $45.15 to $42.52, or $2.63 per share. (SAC ¶ 179).
4. The False Claims Act Allegations
The SAC's False Claims Act Allegations are brief, comprising only three paragraphs, and are focused on lawsuits against GSK for False Claims Act violations. The SAC alleges that GSK was sued for False Claims Act violations several times, starting with an action brought on November 16, 2001, when GSK was trading at $53.96 per share. (SAC ¶ 276). After news of the suit was reported in the National Law Journal on December 10, 2001, GSK's share price is alleged to have fallen to $49.40 on December 11, 2001, but the complaint is silent about what the share price was on December 10, 2001. (Id.) The SAC states that the lawsuits claimed that GSK was charging the government (i.e., Medicare and Medicaid) higher prices for drugs than it charged private entities. (SAC ¶¶ 276-277). GSK announced settlement of its False Claims Act liabilities for $87,600,922 on April 16, 2003, resulting in a stock price drop from $39.10 on April 14, 2003 to $37.60 on April 16, 2003, or $1.50 per share.
5. The Insider Trading Allegations
With respect to all of the above claims, the SAC alleges that Garnier took advantage of material adverse information not known to the public while issuing materially false and misleading statements. (SAC ¶ 279). The SAC alleges that the extent and timing of Garnier's trades establish that he possessed materially adverse information that he failed to disclose. (Id.). The only Garnier stock transaction during the Class Period alleged in the SAC is a sale of 142,250 shares of GSK on February 19, 2004, yielding proceeds of $6,143,293.
II. Applicable Law
A. Standard of Review
On these motions to dismiss the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint and draws all inferences in favor of Plaintiff. Karedes v. Ackerly Group, 423 F.3d 107, 113 (2d Cir. 2005). It is well-settled that a case may not be dismissed "unless the court is satisfied that the complaint cannot state any set of facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2002)(citing Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2001). The Court, however, need not give "credence to plaintiff's conclusory allegations" or legal conclusions offered as pleadings. Cantor Fitzgerald v. Lutnik, 313 F.3d 704, 709 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Dawes v. Walker, 239 F.3d 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2001)); Van Carpals v. S.S. American Harvester, 297 F.2d 9, 11 n.1 (1961) (Friendly, J.) ("[I]n federal pleading there is no need to plead legal conclusions; these are for the court to apply."). On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court may consider materials of which the plaintiff had notice and relied upon in framing his complaint, as well as materials of which judicial notice may be taken. See Kavowras v. New York Times, 328 F.3d 50, 57 (2nd Cir. 2003); Cortec Indus. v. Sum Holding, 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1991).
B. Section 10(b) Elements and Pleading Requirements Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful to "use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" in violation of Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") rules and regulations. 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). The SEC implementing rule, Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (2004), prohibits the making of untrue material statements of fact or the misleading omission of material facts in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Courts have implied a private right of action from section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, with the following basic elements: 1) a material misrepresentation or omission; 2) scienter or "wrongful state of mind;" 3) a connection with the purchase or sale of a security; 4) reliance; 5) economic loss; and 6) loss causation. See Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341-42 (2005). In other words, to state a claim for securities fraud, "a plaintiff must plead that 'in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, the defendant, acting with scienter, made a false material misrepresentation or omitted to disclose material information and that plaintiff's reliance on defendant's action caused [plaintiff's] injury.'" In Re Time Warner Inc. Securities Litigation, 9 F.3d 259, 264 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting Bloor v. Carro, Spanbock, Londin, Rodman & Fass, 754 F.2d 57, 61 (2d Cir. 1985).
"A complaint asserting securities fraud must also satisfy the heightened pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud to be alleged with particularity." Kalnit v. Eichler, 264 F.3d 131, 138 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co., 228 F.3d 154, 168 (2d Cir. 2000). The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737, heightened the requirements for pleading securities fraud. Id. It also protected forward-looking statements in a company's SEC filings and press releases from giving rise to a securities fraud claim as long as the statements are identified as forward-looking and are accompanied by sufficient cautionary language. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1)(A)(i). Similarly, under the "bespeaks caution" doctrine, "[c]ertain alleged misrepresentations . . . are immaterial as a matter of law because it cannot be said that any reasonable investor could consider them important in light of adequate cautionary language." In re Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 01-CV-6190-CJS, 2003 WL 23101782, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2003) (quoting Halperin, 295 F.3d at 357); see also Mercury Air Group, Inc. v. Jet USA Airlines, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 3473, 1998 WL 542291, at *4-*5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 1998), aff'd, 189 F.3d 461 (2d Cir. 1999).
The PSLRA also specifies the standard for pleading scienter:
In any private action arising under this chapter in which the plaintiff may recover money damages only on proof that the defendant acted with a particular state of mind, the complaint shall, with respect to each act or omission alleged to violate this chapter, state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2); Kalnit, 264 F.3d at 138. To meet the PSLRA requirement for alleging scienter, a securities fraud complaint must set forth allegations "giv[ing] rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent." Id. (quoting Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300, 307 (2d Cir. 2000)). "A plaintiff can establish this intent either (a) by alleging facts to show that defendants had both motive and opportunity to commit fraud, or (b) by alleging facts that constitute strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness." Id. at 138-39 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Where a plaintiff alleges securities fraud against a public company and its officers and directors, it is motive rather than opportunity that is at issue. See, e.g., Kalnit, 264 F.3d at 139; In Re Time Warner, 9 F.3d at 269. Kalnit explained that in order to allege motive to commit fraud, a section 10(b) complaint must set forth something more than a generalized "assertion that the officers were motivated to inflate the value of stock to increase their executive compensation." Kalnit, 264 F.3d at 139. In other words, a plaintiff who alleges that directors or officers misled the public in order to profit from an inflated stock price must point to a "specific benefit that would inure to the defendants that would not be either generalized to all corporate directors or beneficial to all shareholders[.]" Id. at 142. Concrete, personal benefits giving rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent must be alleged. Id. at 139. Allegations of stock sales by insiders are insufficient to establish scienter in the absence of factual allegations demonstrating that such sales were unusual in timing or amount. See, e.g., Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81, 94-95 (2d Cir. 2000); In re Glenayre Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 96 Civ. 8252, 1998 WL 915907, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 1998) ("Insider stock sales are [only] unusual where the 'trading was in amounts dramatically out of line with prior trading practices [and] at times calculated to maximize personal benefit from undisclosed inside information.'") (citation omitted), aff'd sub nom. Kwalbrun v. Glanayre Techs., Inc., 201 F.3d 431 (2d Cir. 1999); In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 97 Civ. 1865, 1998 WL 283286, at *6 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 1998); see also Ressler v. Liz Claiborne, Inc., 75 F.Supp. 2d 43, 60 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).
"'Where motive is not apparent, it is still possible to plead scienter by identifying circumstances indicating conscious behavior by the defendant, though the strength of the circumstantial allegations must be correspondingly greater.'" Id. at 142 (quoting Beck v. Mfrs. Hanover Trust Co., 820 F.2d 46, 50 (2d Cir. 1987). A plaintiff who pleads conscious misbehavior or recklessness must allege that defendant engaged in "'conduct which is highly unreasonable and which represents an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care[.]'" Id. (quoting Honeyman v. Hoyt (In Re Carter Wallace, Inc., Secs. Litig.), 220 F.3d 36, 39 (2d Cir. 2000).
In Dura, supra, the Supreme Court clarified the requirements for pleading economic loss and loss causation under the Exchange Act. Noting that the implied cause of action available under section 10(b) resembles a common law tort cause of action for deceit (i.e., fraudulent misrepresentation), Dura, 544 U.S. at 343-344, the Court held that a plaintiff who brings an action under section 10(b) must "allege and prove the traditional elements of causation and loss," id. at 346. Put simply, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a loss, id. at 344, and that "the defendant's misrepresentation proximately caused the plaintiff's economic loss," id. at 346.
In Dura, the complaint lacked this element because it alleged merely that the defendant had made misrepresentations and that the plaintiff had purchased stock at an artificially high price. See id. at 339-40. "The complaint[] fail[ed] to claim that Dura's share price fell significantly after the truth became known[.]" Id. at 347. The loss causation inquiry, therefore, must focus on a link between dissemination of information about the alleged misrepresentations and significant drops in share price. Needless to say, the inquiry must also include whether the complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered a loss.
C. Statute of Limitations
Section 804(1) of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 ("Sarbanes-Oxley"), codified in part at 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b), extended the statute of limitations period applicable to section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 to the earlier of "(1) two years after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation; or (2) 5 years after such violation." The two-year limitations period, or the "inquiry notice" period, applies when "'circumstances would suggest to an investor of ordinary intelligence the probability that she has been defrauded[.]'" LC Capital Partners v. Frontier Ins. Group, 318 F.3d 148, 154 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Dodds v. Cigna Securities, Inc., 12 F.3d 346, 350 (2d Cir. 1993).
The circumstances giving rise to inquiry notice in the securities litigation context are frequently compared to "storm warnings." Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 396 F.3d 161, 168 (2d Cir. 2005). "Where . . . the facts needed for determination of when a reasonable investor of ordinary intelligence would have been aware of the existence of a fraud can be gleaned from the complaint . . . , resolution of the issue on a motion to dismiss is appropriate." LC Capital, 318 F.3d at 156.
III. Discussion
A. Statute of Limitations
The parties agree that, under Sarbanes-Oxley, the statute of limitations for an Exchange Act claim is the shorter of five years from the occurrence or two years from the time plaintiff had actual or inquiry notice of the claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b). They also agree that the two-year period begins to run as soon as "'circumstances would suggest to an investor of ordinary intelligence the probability that she had been defrauded.'" LC Capital, 335 F.3d at 193 (quoting Dodds, 12 F.3d at 350).
The first action in this litigation was filed on April 12, 2005. Assuming for these purposes that the Paxil Discontinuation Allegations, the Patent Allegations, and the False Claims Act Allegations state a claim under section 10(b), plaintiff was on notice of the facts underlying those claims more than two years earlier, thus any claim arising from those allegations is barred by the statute of limitations.
The Paxil Discontinuation Allegations assert that, from the early 1990s until August 2001, GSK withheld from physicians and the market information about alleged difficulties experienced by patients taking Paxil who attempted to discontinue use of the drug. (SAC ¶¶ 238, 264). The SAC further alleges that in December 2001, GSK, in consultation with the FDA, changed the labeling of Paxil to include a warning about such effects and the FDA approved the new label. (SAC ¶ 265). Moreover, the SAC alleges that disclosure of the discontinuation effects caused the price of GSK ADRs to drop by $1.04 on September 6, 2001, following the news of the consumer class action lawsuits. (SAC ¶ 264). Thus, even according to the SAC, plaintiff was on notice of any claim based on the Paxil Discontinuation Allegations well more than two years before this lawsuit was commenced. To the extent that plaintiff argues that the consumer actions did not constitute storm warnings because they were not brought by shareholders, (Pl. Mem. at 23), it is a distinction without a difference. The alleged fraudulent conduct -- failing to disclose the withdrawal effects of Paxil -- is the same.
The allegations of the SAC also show that any claim based on the Patent Allegations is time-barred. The Patent Allegations allege that GSK brought patent litigations seeking to prevent generic drug manufacturers from manufacturing and selling generic versions of Paxil and Augmentin beginning in 1998. (SAC ¶¶ 104, 161). The SAC alleges that in February 2002, at least one court had invalidated certain of GSK's patents covering Augmentin and that information was publicly disclosed no later than March 13, 2002. (SAC ¶¶ 133-134, 137-138). Similarly, on July 23, 2002, GSK announced that it had lost one patent case involving Paxil and on December 30, 2002, GSK publicly disclosed that a different court granted summary judgment in favor of GSK on one patent claim, granted summary judgment against GSK on a different patent, and declined to grant summary judgment to either party on two additional patents. (SAC ¶¶ 110, 166). All of those developments were disclosed, at the latest, in GSK's Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2002, which was filed with the SEC on March 28, 2003. (2002 Form 20-F at 103-107).
In July 2002, the FTC issued a report critical of GSK's conduct in pursuing patent listings. (SAC ¶ 231). The SAC also alleges that GSK was sued in private antitrust actions arising out of its patent enforcement activities --litigations that were disclosed, at the latest, in GSK's Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2002. (SAC ¶ 99; 2002 Form 20-F at 106). The SAC alleges that GSK stock price dropped on at least five different occasions between April 1, 2002 and March 4, 2003 in response to developments in the patent litigation. Indeed, the SAC quotes a March 5, 2003 article published in The Times (London) that "the bad news [concerning the loss of patent protection for Paxil] is fully in the price." Here again, there can be no dispute that plaintiff was on notice of any claim arising from the Patent Allegations more than two years before this action was filed. See, e.g., Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d 36, 42 (2d Cir. 1993). In any event, because, as noted below, the underlying facts about the patent litigations were all publicly available, there is no doubt that plaintiff was on inquiry notice long before April of 2003, and inquiry would have disclosed all of the facts he relies on now.
To the extent that plaintiff argues, based on LC Capital, that Garnier's "reassuring words" that GSK would prevail on its patent litigation somehow toll the statute of limitations, that case is of no assistance. There, the corporate officer announced that the recurring problem of under-reserving "is now behind us" and that the company had "paid the bill" on those items. LC Capital, 318 F.3d at 155. The court noted that the problem of under-reserving was a serious one for the company, an insurance company, and that it had recurred. But, because the "'reassuring' statements by management were mere expressions of hope, devoid of any specific steps taken to avoid under-reserving in the future," the court found that "the claimed reassurances are unavailing." Id. at 156.
The logic of LC Capital applies with even greater force here. Garnier's statements ("We are very confident we can defend our patents[,]" and "The PTO confirmed that those patent[s] were genuine, they were rock solid. And we feel that the courts eventually will recognize the letter of the law and give us the added protection for Augmentin." (SAC ¶ 134)), can be viewed by a reasonable investor only as mere expressions of hope. The company had no ability to assure the result of the patent litigations, whereas at least in LC Capital the company had some ability to avoid under-reserving. Also the words used, "we are very confident" and "we feel," can only be understood as aspirational, and thus no reasonable investor would understand them to be factual guarantees of patent protection. Accordingly, these supposed "reassuring" words are insufficient to toll the statute of limitations.
Finally, the SAC alleges that GSK "has also violated the Federal False
Claims Act numerous times," that it was sued as a result of those
violations on November 16, 2001, and that public disclosure of a False
Claims Act lawsuit caused a drop in share price on December 11, 2001.
¶276). Because plaintiff had notice of GSK's alleged violations of the
False Claims Act more than two years before bringing this action, any
claim arising from those allegations is time-barred.*fn2
Accordingly, based on the allegations of the SAC and
publicly-filed documents, claims based on the Paxil Discontinuance
Allegations, the Patent Allegations and the False Claims Act
Allegations are time-barred.
B. Material Misrepresentation or Omission
The crux of the Paxil Pediatric Allegations is that GSK, through employees and sponsored researchers, disseminated information to the medical community about the most promising of its studies on Paxil's effects on children, while suppressing information about several negative studies. Assuming without deciding that
1) Plaintiff's allegations that GSK "sponsored" the doctors' research, (see SAC ¶¶ 34, 47), are sufficient to attribute the doctors' statements to GSK, see, e.g., Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169, 174-75 (2d Cir. 1998); SEC v. Pimco Advisors Fund Mgmt. LLC, 341 F.Supp.2d 454, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("[A] defendant must actually make a false or misleading statement in order to be held liable under Sections 10(b).") (quoting Wright, 152 F.3d at 175), and 2) articles in medical journals and presentations at medical conferences are statements made in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, see In re Carter Wallace, Inc. Sec. Litig., 150 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that allegedly misleading advertisements in medical journals could satisfy the "in connection with" requirement where plaintiffs alleged those advertisements were intended to impact stock price, but affirming dismissal of securities fraud claim because alleged misrepresentations were not material), the Paxil Allegations still fail because they are not material.
In order to be material, a pharmaceutical company's failure to disclose information about a drug must be of sufficient magnitude that the commercial viability of the drug would be called into question if the truth were disclosed. In Re Carter Wallace, 150 F.3d at 158. The SAC concedes that Paxil was a drug approved for adults, that prescriptions for children were an "off-label" use representing a small fraction of total sales, and that generic competitors were fighting to get a piece of Paxil's market share even after news about Paxil's effects on children came to light. The potential loss of a nominal amount of off-label sales certainly did not threaten the commercial viability of the drug, and thus the failure to disclose that potential loss cannot be said to be material. Because on the face of the SAC the alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding Paxil's use in children are not material, the Paxil Pediatric Allegations fail to state a claim.
The Paxil Withdrawal Allegations similarly fail to allege a material misrepresentation or omission. The only decline in share price alleged to flow from revelations about Paxil withdrawal symptoms was a drop from $45.14 to $44.10 on September 6, 2001 following the announcement of a class action lawsuit. As with the Paxil Pediatric Allegations, the SAC fails to allege that withdrawal symptoms threatened the commercial viability of Paxil, and therefore the alleged misrepresentations and omissions cannot be found to be material. Thus, the Paxil Withdrawal Allegations fail to state a claim.
Although the loss of patent protection would appear to meet the materiality element, the Patent Allegations fail to allege a misrepresentation or omission. As noted above, the Patent Allegations concern statements made by GSK about the legal positions the company was taking with respect to patent protection for Paxil and Augmentin and Garnier's "confiden[ce]" in the outcome. As to the former, there is simply nothing in the SAC that alleges that GSK misrepresented the legal positions it was taking or that GSK misrepresented developments in its patent cases as they occurred. To hold that a legal position taken by a publicly traded company, or an expression of confidence in a legal position, may be converted by hindsight into an actionable misrepresentation if the company later loses the lawsuit would have a chilling effect on publicly traded companies seeking to defend their interests in litigation. In any event, Garnier's and GSK's optimism that GSK would prevail in the litigation is a classic example of a forward-looking statement and is clearly protected as such. See In re Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 01-CV-6190-CJS, 2003 WL 23101782, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2003) (quoting Halperin v. eBanker USA.com, Inc., 295 F.3d 352, 357 (2d Cir. 2002)); see also Mercury Air Group, Inc. v. Jet USA Airlines, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 3473, 1998 WL 542291, at *4-*5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 1998), aff'd, 189 F.3d 461 (2d Cir. 1999)).
In any event, GSK's regulatory filings fully disclosed to investors like plaintiff all of the Company's material information about the patent litigations. For example, GSK's Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully disclosed, among other litigation, the patent litigation involving Paxil and Augmentin. For example, the "Joint Statement by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer" of GSK at the very beginning of the Form 20-F explained that:
In July [2002], in the USA, the first generic version of Augmentin was launched. This followed a ruling by a federal judge that our Augmentin patents were invalid. We are appealing against the decision, in the firm belief that our patents are valid. . . .
Seroxat/Paxil continues to be subject to threat of generic competition, particularly in the USA.
A federal judge in Chicago recently ruled that GlaxosmithKline's patent in the USA covering the hemihydrate form of Paxil was valid but not infringed by generics company Apotex's product. We believe our patent to be infringed by Apotex's product and will appeal against the ruling. Also, we will continue to pursue litigation for infringement of other patents relating to Paxil against Apotex and other generics companies in the USA.
As a result of these pending matters, the possible timing of generic competition to Paxil in the USA is unclear. (2002 Form 20-F at 4). The "Legal Proceedings" section of the Form 20-F provided additional details of the patent litigations:
In the USA a number of distributors of generic drugs have filed applications with the FDA to market generic versions of Paxil/Seroxat (paroxetine hydrochloride) prior to the expiration in 2006 of the Group's patent on paroxetine hydrochloride hemihydrate. The distributors are looking to bring to market anhydrate or other versions of paroxetine hydrochloride and in one case paroxetine mesylate. The cases are complex but the Group believes that the generic anhydrate and other versions infringe because they contain and/or convert to the hemihydrate form and/or infringe other Group patents. In response the Group has filed actions against all those distributors for infringement of various of the Group's patents. (2002 Form 20-F at 103). The Form 20-F continued by identifying each of those patent litigations and describing the significant developments in each case--including that GSK had lost one case after trial because the judge had concluded that the generic company's product did not infringe the GSK patent, and that GSK was appealing that ruling. (2002 Form 20-F at 103). In the face of these disclosures in GSK's SEC filings, no reasonable investor can claim to have been deceived into believing that Paxil and Augmentin would remain free of generic competition until 2006 or beyond. See In re Bausch & Lomb, 2003 WL 23101782, at *2; Halperin, 295 F.3d at 357.
The False Claims Act Allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the SAC fails to allege a misrepresentation made by Defendants. The SAC alleges that GSK overcharged Medicare and Medicaid for certain drugs, resulting in lawsuits against GSK under the False Claims Act. (SAC ¶¶ 276-278).
The only alleged misleading statement cited is GSK's April 16, 2003 announcement that it had settled its False Claims Act liabilities by paying $87,600,922 for overcharges on Paxil and Flonase. Plaintiff alleges that this statement was misleading because the settlement did not represent all of GSK's liabilities under the False Claims Act, referring to a September 20, 2005 report that GSK would pay $150 million to settle False Claims Act liabilities for overcharging the Government for two other drugs, Zofran and Kytril. The SAC, however, alleges no connection between these two settlements, two and a half years apart, involving different drugs. In any event, in light of GSK's annual revenue of £1.55 billion in 2000 on Paxil sales alone, (SAC ¶ 31), these settlement amounts are unlikely to be material.
C. Scienter
The SAC fails to plead scienter with the requisite particularity prescribed by the PSLRA. The SAC recites dozens of statements, identifies the speakers and states the approximate dates and locations where those statements were made but fails to explain why the alleged misstatements were fraudulent, how any of the statements affected the price of GSK stock or how any plaintiff was damaged by any statement.
With respect to the Paxil Pediatric Allegations, for example, the SAC lists numerous presentations made at medical conferences by independent doctors and researchers over an approximately five-year period concerning the doctors' views as to the potential benefits of using Paxil to treat children and adolescents and alleges that GSK "sponsored" or "knew of" those presentations. Critically, however, the SAC does not allege that the doctors presented information knowing it was false, that the doctors did not in fact believe in the benefits of Paxil or how any of the doctors would have the motive to misrepresent the benefits of Paxil to the medical community. Accordingly, the Paxil Pediatric Allegations are insufficient.
The same result obtains as to the claim based on Garnier's trading. Although Garnier, like all CEOs, had the opportunity to commit fraud, the SAC fails to allege motive adequately. Plaintiff relies on the allegation that Garnier took advantage of information withheld from the public in order to sell shares of GSK at an artificially high price. As noted above, however, allegations of stock sales by insiders are insufficient absent allegations demonstrating that such sales were unusual in timing or amount. See, e.g., Rothman, 220 F.3d at 94-95.
During the Class Period, Garnier is alleged to a have executed a single sale of 142,250 shares on February 19, 2004. Of the thirteen share price declines alleged in the SAC, eleven occurred between September 6, 2001 and February 13, 2004, i.e., prior to the February 19, 2004 stock sale. (See SAC ¶¶ 138-140, 165-166, 169, 173, 177, 179, 264, 276-277). Two drops in share price are alleged to have occurred after February 19, 2004, on June 2, 2004 and December 10, 2004, respectively, (see SAC ¶¶ 48, 51), but the net effect of these two alleged declines in share price turns out, upon closer examination, to be an increase in share price. According to the SAC, as negative news hit the market about the Paxil's effects on children, GSK stock fell from $42.77 to $41.39 on June 2, 2004, then again from $45.08 to $44.82 on December 10, 2004. If anything is to be drawn from the facts alleged in the SAC, it is that Garnier held GSK stock through eleven price declines that resulted from negative news reaching the market, then sold a large number of GSK shares prior to a period of time in which the stock rose from $42.77 to $44.82 in the face of some additional negative information. Under these circumstances, the SAC fails to allege motive.
In any event, the public record discloses that Garnier's February 2004 sale was in connection with his exercise of stock options granted in 1994 that would expire unless exercised by November 22, 2004. Garnier sold only the number of ADRs necessary to pay the option price and applicable taxes and retained the remaining ADRs. Consequently, Garnier's net holdings of GSK increased by 88,802 ADRs as a result of the transaction, he continued to own 204,430 ADRs (worth in excess of $8 million) as of December 31, 2004 and had options to purchase an additional 3.8 million ADRs. See Form 6-K dated February 20, 2004; Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 at 53-54. In these circumstances, Garnier's stock sale cannot be said to have been unusual or suspicious.
In order to allege scienter under the alternative theory of conscious misbehavior or recklessness, the complaint must present strong circumstantial evidence. Kalnit, 264 F.3d at 142. "'Where motive is not apparent, . . . the strength of the circumstantial allegations [of conscious misbehavior or recklessness] must be correspondingly greater.'" Id. (quoting Beck v. Mfrs. Hanover Trust Co., 820 F.2d 46, 50 (2d Cir. 1987). As noted above, see supra Part IV.A, Plaintiff has failed even to allege a material misrepresentation with respect to any of his allegations. Plaintiff falls far short of alleging "'conduct which is highly unreasonable and which represents an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care[.]" Id. (quoting Honeyman v. Hoyt (In Re Carter Wallace, Inc. Sec. Litig.), 220 F.3d 36, 39 (2d Cir. 2000).
In sum, all of Plaintiff's claims fail to allege the scienter element of securities fraud because Plaintiff has not alleged facts that satisfy either the motive or conscious misbehavior/recklessness prong of scienter.
D. Economic Loss and Loss Causation
Even accepting plaintiff's factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, Karedes, 423 F.3d at 113, Plaintiff has not alleged loss causation with respect to the Paxil Pediatric Allegations, the Paxil Withdrawal Allegations, or the False Claims Act Allegations. One of Plaintiff's class representative certifications, executed under penalty of perjury, states that Plaintiff acquired 1400 GSK shares on September 28, 2001 for $56.28 per share and sold the same number of shares on June 13, 2002 for $39.43 per share. Although Plaintiff suffered an overall loss on the sale of these shares, the SAC fails to allege that a misrepresentation by Defendants, when revealed to the public, was the proximate cause of any loss suffered by Plaintiff. Dura Pharmaceuticals, 544 U.S. at 346-347. A second certification states that Plaintiff purchased 350 shares of GSK on February 17, 2004 at $42.96 and still held those shares as of the date of the certification, May 10, 2005. With respect to these shares, too, Plaintiff fails to allege any particular loss after February 17, 2004 proximately caused by public revelation of Defendants' alleged misrepresentations.
The SAC alleges two GSK share price declines in connection with the Paxil Pediatric Allegations. The first occurred on June 2, 2004, when the New York State Attorney General announced a lawsuit concerning suppression of the Paxil pediatric studies. On that date, GSK shares fell from $42.77 to $41.39. The only other alleged decline occurred on December 9, 2004, when GSK stock price dropped from $45.08 to $44.82 in reaction to a news program highlighting Paxil's effects on children. Plaintiff's certifications show that he held the stock at the time of both alleged price declines, but the SAC fails to allege that Plaintiff suffered a loss. The share price prior to the initial negative market reaction was $42.77, and the share price after the second negative market reaction was $44.82, or $2.05 higher. The SAC, therefore, fails to allege that Plaintiff suffered a loss proximately caused by the truth about Paxil's effects on children reaching the public. In fact, the Paxil Pediatric Allegations fail to allege a loss at all, given that Plaintiff purchased his shares for $42.96 on February 17, 2004 and still held those shares at $44.82, or $1.86 higher, on the date of the second alleged price decline.
The only alleged price decline linked to the Paxil Withdrawal Allegations occurred on September 6, 2001, when news of a class action lawsuit caused GSK shares to fall from $45.14 to $44.10. Here, too, Plaintiff has failed to allege a loss for the simple reason that he did not own GSK stock at the time of the only alleged price drop. Plaintiff made his initial purchase of GSK stock on September 28, 2001, three weeks after the alleged fall in share price. Accepting as true the facts put forward by Plaintiff, the only reasonable inference is that Plaintiff, if anything, benefited from a drop in share price due to disclosures made prior to his purchase of stock, not that he suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations that came to light.
Plaintiff has also failed to plead loss causation with respect to the False Claims Act allegations. Here, news of a class action lawsuit is alleged to have caused a decline in stock price from $53.96 to $49.40 between November 16, 2001 and December 11, 2001. This decline could not possibly have been caused by the only alleged misleading statement made by GSK with respect to the False Claims Act litigation. The alleged misleading statement regarding settlement of GSK's False Claims Act liabilities was made on April 16, 2003, a full 16 months after the alleged stock price decline. Plaintiff did not own GSK stock in April 2003 and cannot allege a loss based on a share price decline in that month.
For all of the above reasons, GSK has failed to allege loss causation with respect to the Paxil Pediatric, Paxil Withdrawal, and False Claims Act Allegations.
IV. Control Person Liability
Plaintiff has failed to state a primary violation of the securities laws under section 10(b). Without a primary violation, there can be no secondary, or derivative, violation under Section 20(a). See Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124, 1132 (2d Cir. 1994); Brown v. Hutton Group, 795 F. Supp. 1317, 1324 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim is also dismissed.
V. Dismissal with Prejudice
Prior to the filing of the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff was given the opportunity to correct deficiencies pointed out by Defendants, with the understanding that no further amendments would be permitted. Plaintiff availed himself of this opportunity prior to serving the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint. In addition, the grounds for dismissal set forth above demonstrate that further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the dismissal is with prejudice.
For the reasona stated herein, Defendants motion to dismiss the complaint (dkt. no. 13) is granted, and the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mark this action closed and all pending motions denied as moot.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Each month, Rated People connects over 50,000 homeowners with quality tradesmen - simply enter your job details in the form above to get started.
We'll match your job to the relevant tradesmen in your area - those interested will pay to see your contact details and call you to quote.
As each tradesman expresses interest in quoting on your job, we'll send you their profile and ratings to help you choose the right one for you.
After the work is complete, return to the site and rate your tradesman based on their quality of work, reliability and value for money.
Painter / Decorator
Added 04/11/2016
Services required: painting, wallpapering - patterned 1 x dining room, 1 x lounge/living room...
Added 21/10/2016
Electrical wall switch needs fixing, coming loose
Added 11/10/2016
Two new (replacement) external lights to be fitted - one at front and one at rear of the house...
Added 14/09/2016
Install 3 x light fittings Additional information: 2 circular fluorescent lights in kitchen...
Painter / Decorator
Added 05/09/2016
Services required: painting 1 x dining room, 1 x kitchen My kitchen and orangery are all...
Added 25/08/2016
The tap is very stiff and difficult to use
Managing your job is easier with the Rated People Homes App, download it today.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Advanced search
Colin Farrow, User Experience Director of Applegate Marketplace, presents the functionality of Applegate PRO
Source smarter, buy better with Applegate PRO.
With Applegate you can:
Want to find out more before you sign up? View Supplier Tools as a guest!
Please wait while your request is processed...
To use this service, you must first login or register:
eco lighting, ceiling lights, low energy lighting, low energy light fitting, energy saving lighting, energy efficient light, efficient light,...
WL4002, JC83006, JCC, 30W, WL4002-30W, 30W - 815mm T4 light, Low energy, energy efficient lighting, efficient light
Call Applegate +44 (0)345 600 7177 AS


text:
February 29th, 2016 | International Solidarity Movement, Khalil team | al-Khalil, occupied Palestine It has now been four months since the Israeli military declared part of Hebron a "closed military zone" in which Palestinian residents are no longer free to ...Read More »
Aggressive settler interrupts nonviolent commemorative event hosted by Youth Against Settlements
24nd February 2016 | Youth Against Settlements | Hebron, occupied Palestine Notorious settler Anat Cohen interrupted a peaceful movie screening, which was hosted by Youth Against Settlements to commemorate the victims of the Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre in 1994. Every night, ...Read More »
Mohammed al-Qiq on the verge of death: sign Avaaz petition to demand his freedom NOW!
12th February 2016 |International Solidarity Movement, Ramallah Team | occupied Palestine 33-year-old journalist, Mohammed al-Qiq, is on his 80th day of a hunger strike in protest against his imprisonment without charges or trial. Al-Qiq's health has deteriorated to the ...Read More »
100 days of collective punishment for Hebron residents
7th February 2016 | International Solidarity Movement | Hebron, occupied Palestine February 8th marks one hundred days since Israeli forces declared the Tel Rumeida neighborhood and the adjacent portion of Shuhada Street a "closed military zone," requiring residents to register ...Read More »
TAKE ACTION to end the closed military zone in Hebron
19th January 2016 | Action Alert ISM is currently working to expand the campaign to put pressure on Israeli authorities to heed the demands set forth in the Action Alert, which over 35 organizations have now signed calling for an end to ...Read More »
ACT NOW ! Put an end to the 'Closed Military Zone' in Tel Rumeida and Shuhada Street, Hebron
11th January 2016 | Action Alert last updated 21st January 2016 *** Arabic version below *** The undersigned organisations are calling on the international community to take immediate action regarding the continuous closure of the Tel Rumeida neighborhood and ...Read More »
First aid crews need your support to save lives!
9th November 2015 | International Solidarity Movement, Huwara Team | occupied Palestine On October 30th 2015, Israeli forces shot at one of Fadi's ambulances which resulted in the windows of one of the ambulances being broken alongside other damages. ...Read More »
Help ISM continue our work!
Friends, the last month has been a morbid display of Israeli force in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The number of killings, injuries, and arrests of Palestinians is rising so rapidly that it is becoming increasingly difficult to clarify one extrajudicial ...Read More »
"The youth will not tire, 'till your independence"
November 7th, 2015 | International Solidarity Movement, Nablus Team | Nablus, Occupied Palestine Today, at 6 pm local time in Occupied Jerusalem, Palestinians and supporters gathered in peaceful events all over the world to sing the "unofficial" Palestinian national anthem, Mawtini (In Arabic ...Read More »
1,000 Black activists, artists, and scholars demand justice for Palestine
19th August 2015 | Black4Palestine | USA Over 1,000 Black activists, artists, scholars, students, and organizations have launched a statement expressing their solidarity and commitment to ensuring justice for Palestinians. Signatories to the statement span a wide cross-section of Black activists and ...Read More »


text:
Show postponed to October, 2016.
Due to unforeseen circumstances, the show has been postponed to October, 2016.
Remember – your 1st to 3rd wins from 2015 will still count as qualifiers for next year.
Mark your calendar for October 2015
The Canadian National Cavalcade of Champions will be held at the Orangeville Fairgrounds again in 2015. Mark your calendar and get your top alpacas qualified for the show!
Show registration is now open!
REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN for the 2014 Show and the 2014 Prequalifier.
Register early to take advantage of our early bird pricing.


text:
SHOBERL, Frederic (ed.)
Forget Me Not.
A Christmas and New Year's Present for MDCCCXXIX.
First edition. Forget Me Not, a yearly gift book compiling short stories and poetry based on engravings commissioned by the publisher, was the first English annual of its type and an overnight success. It spawned an entire industry, with at least sixty competitors appearing by 1831. Frederic Shoberl was the annual's first editor, serving in that capacity until 1834.
Don't understand our descriptions? Try reading our Glossary
Octavo. Original green glazed paper boards printed with titles and illustrations, all edges gilt. Housed in the publisher's matching slipcase. Frontispiece and 13 plates. Boards lightly rubbed, some small scuffs. An excellent, fresh copy.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
October 16, 2013
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,v.DAVID GRANSKIE, JR., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Argued: September 17, 2013.
Approved for Publication October 16, 2013.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Indictment No. 09-08-0572.
Nathan Howe, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant ( Geoffrey D. Soriano, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney; Joseph V. Rocchietti, Assistant Prosecutor, and Mr. Howe, on the briefs).
Jacqueline E. Turner, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent ( Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Ms. Turner, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges REISNER, ALVAREZ and OSTRER. The opinion of the court was delivered by REISNER, P.J.A.D.
Page 506
[433 N.J.Super. 46] REISNER, P.J.A.D.
By leave granted, the State appeals from a January 16, 2013 trial court order permitting the defense to present expert psychiatric testimony concerning the potential impact of defendant's opiate addiction and withdrawal symptoms on the reliability of his confession. We conclude that the defense may present expert psychiatric testimony, so long as it is limited pursuant to the principles stated in this opinion.
Defendant was suspected of participating in a brutal sexual assault and murder. Two of his friends confessed to their involvement, but did not implicate defendant. He initially denied any involvement in the crime. However, a few days later, while he was in jail on an unrelated warrant, he confessed. Prior to his [433 N.J.Super. 47] trial, defendant claimed that the confession was not voluntary and was unreliable, because he was suffering from severe heroin withdrawal symptoms at the time he gave the statement.
Following a N.J.R.E. 104 hearing, the trial judge held that at an upcoming Miranda [1] hearing and at trial defendant could present an expert psychiatrist to testify about the possible relationship between his heroin withdrawal and his confession. The expert would be permitted to testify that defendant was addicted to heroin and was suffering from withdrawal when he gave his statement to the police, and that his claims about the effects of withdrawal were " consistent with his claim that he was giving an unreliable statement at the time" of his confession, " given his history of issues with heroin dependence."
In a written opinion, dated January 15, 2012, the trial judge explained his reasons for admitting the testimony. Relying on
Page 507
State v. King, 387 N.J.Super. 522, 904 A.2d 808 (App.Div.2006), he concluded that the testimony was admissible to explain defendant's mental disorder to the jury and to explain why someone suffering from heroin withdrawal might confess to a crime as a result of the effect of the withdrawal symptoms, whether or not the confession was accurate. However, the judge ruled that the expert could not testify as to whether this defendant's statement was reliable or unreliable. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we agree with the trial judge.
In evaluating a proffer of expert testimony, the court must apply the provisions of N.J.R.E. 702.
[T]he rule sets forth three basic requirements for the admission of expert testimony: " '(1) the intended testimony must concern a subject matter that is beyond the ken of the average juror; (2) the field testified to must be at a state of the art that an expert's testimony could be sufficiently reliable; and (3) the witness must have sufficient expertise to offer the intended testimony.'"
[ State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 567-68, 874 A.2d 1084 (2005) (citation omitted).]
[433 N.J.Super. 48] Those requirements are construed " liberally" in favor of admitting expert testimony. State v. Jenewicz, 193 N.J. 440, 454, 940 A.2d 269 (2008). We review a trial judge's evidentiary rulings -- including a decision to permit an expert to testify pursuant to N.J.R.E. 702 -- for abuse of discretion. Id. at 455, 940 A.2d 269.
On this appeal, the State characterizes the trial judge's decision as a departure from established case law. We disagree. His ruling was consistent with settled precedent upholding a defendant's right to present expert testimony designed to explain to the jury why a particular defendant's psychological condition would make that defendant vulnerable to giving a false confession. By contrast, courts have routinely rejected efforts to present expert testimony concerning the phenomenon of false confessions in general or the impact of police interrogation methods in producing false confessions.[2]
In this State, the leading cases are State v. Free, 351 N.J.Super. 203, 798 A.2d 83 (App.Div.2002), State v. King, supra, and State v. Rosales, 202 N.J. 549, 998 A.2d 459 (2010). In Free, the defense sought to introduce expert testimony addressing false confessions as a phenomenon and applying the expert's views on that topic to the details of the defendant's interrogation in that case. We held that the testimony was inadmissible, distinguishing cases permitting testimony about a specific defendant's psychological diagnosis:
[433 N.J.Super. 49] However, in each of those cases the psychological testimony concerned scientifically recognized mental disorders relevant to each defendant's confession, rather than, as here, testimony about the effects, in general, of police interrogation
Page 508
techniques. We also acknowledge that a few decisions from other jurisdictions have permitted psychological testimony on the effects of police interrogation. For now, we merely note that none of them went as far as the trial judge did here, and that, in any case, as shall appear, we do not find them persuasive.
[ Free, supra, 351 N.J.Super. at 213, 798 A.2d 83 (citation omitted).]
By contrast, in King, the defendant had a long and documented history of mental illnesses of various types recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). See King, supra, 387 N.J.Super. at 532, 904 A.2d 808. We held that the defendant could present expert opinions concerning his mental illness and testimony explaining to the jury why someone with those types of mental illnesses would be more vulnerable to giving false confessions. Id. at 538, 904 A.2d 808. However, we held that the expert could not testify that this defendant's confession was false or was a product of his mental disease. Id. at 540, 904 A.2d 808.
Our decision in King derived from the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986). There, the Court held that a defendant had a constitutional right to present evidence concerning " the physical and psychological environment in which the confession was obtained." Id. at 684, 106 S.Ct. at 2143, 90 L.Ed.2d at 641. The Court reasoned that such evidence was relevant and admissible on the issue of the truthfulness, as well as the voluntariness, of a confession:
[T]he circumstances surrounding the taking of a confession can be highly relevant to two separate inquiries, one legal and one factual. The manner in which a statement was extracted is, of course, relevant to the purely legal question of its voluntariness, a question most, but not all, States assign to the trial judge alone to resolve. But the physical and psychological environment that yielded the confession can also be of substantial relevance to the ultimate factual issue of the defendant's guilt or innocence. Confessions, even those that have been found to be voluntary, are not conclusive of guilt. And, as with any other part of the prosecutor's case, a confession may be shown to be " insufficiently corroborated or otherwise . . . unworthy of belief." Indeed, stripped of the power to describe to the jury the circumstances that prompted his confession, the defendant is effectively [433 N.J.Super. 50] disabled from answering the one question every rational juror needs answered: If the defendant is innocent, why did he previously admit his guilt?
[ Id. at 688-89, 106 S.Ct. at 2145-46, 90 L.Ed.2d at 644 (citations omitted).]
The Court noted that the issue of whether a confession was voluntary might overlap with whether it was reliable. However, a defendant has the right to present the jury with evidence on the confession's unreliability, even if the judge earlier held that the confession was voluntary:
[R]egardless of whether the defendant marshaled the same evidence earlier in support of an unsuccessful motion to suppress, and entirely independent of any question of voluntariness, a defendant's case may stand or fall on his ability to convince the jury that the manner in which the confession was obtained casts doubt on its credibility.
[ Id. at 689, 106 S.Ct. at 2146, 90 L.Ed.2d at 644 (citations omitted).]
In King, we recognized that courts from many other jurisdictions had relied on Crane in permitting expert testimony concerning " a defendant's psychological
Page 509
makeup and internal psychological characteristics impacting on the reliability of the confession." King, supra, 387 N.J.Super. at 538, 904 A.2d 808.
In People v. Hamilton, 163 Mich.App. 661, 415 N.W.2d 653 (1987), the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a murder conviction because of the trial court's exclusion of testimony by a clinical psychologist as to how the defendant's psychological makeup might have affected his statements to the police. The Court stated, " Crane did not concern evidence of the defendant's psychological makeup, but focused instead on the physical and psychological aspects of an interrogation. Nonetheless, we believe the United States Supreme Court's reasoning is equally applicable to otherwise admissible expert testimony." Id. at 655; see also, State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 124 P.3d 493, 505-09 (2005) (holding psychologist's testimony of the defendant's post-traumatic stress disorder and dependent personality disorder admissible as part of the psychological environment under Crane as bearing on defendant's ability to respond reliably to interrogation, but finding preclusion of testimony harmless error), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1183, 126 S.Ct. 2361, 165 L.Ed.2d 286 (2006); State v. Buechler, 253 Neb. 727, 572 N.W.2d 65, 71-74 (1998) (reversing a murder conviction, holding that under Crane a clinical psychologist should have been allowed to testify that the defendant's drug withdrawal and psychological disorders may have resulted in a false confession, as such testimony pertained to the psychological circumstances under which the defendant confessed and had a bearing on the reliability of the confession); Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 182, 557 S.E.2d 205, 208 (2002) (same as to testimony of clinical and forensic psychologists about the defendant's mental retardation and vulnerability to interrogative suggestibility).
[ Id. at 538-39, 904 A.2d 808.]
[433 N.J.Super. 51] Notably, that precedent included Buechler, supra, which addressed the admissibility of expert testimony concerning the defendant's drug withdrawal.[3] There, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the testimony was admissible to explain the defendant's mental state and how it might have affected the reliability of his confession:
Thus, we reach the question as to whether the district court here abused its discretion in rejecting the psychologist's proffered testimony, which undertook not to tell the jury how to decide the case or what result should be reached on any issue to be resolved by it, but, rather, to explain Buechler's mental state at the time of the recorded confession. While ordinary citizens might understand that drug withdrawal is uncomfortable, without expert evidence ordinary citizens would not be expected to understand that in Buechler's case, withdrawal, combined with his disorders, may have made him suggestible,
Page 510
may have caused him to process information haphazardly, and may have caused him to reach faulty conclusions. Under that state of the record, we must conclude that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the proffered testimony.
[ Buechler, supra, 572 N.W.2d at 73.]
The admissibility issue, however, long predated Buechler. In 1879, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to present expert testimony that he suffered from alcohol addiction and withdrawal symptoms at the time of his confession:
The defendant, for the purpose of showing his mental condition at the time of the alleged confession testified to by Mrs. Squires, introduced witnesses who showed that prior to that time he had been exceedingly intemperate. The defendant then called one Dr. Hay as an expert in nervous diseases, including delirium tremens and other forms of insanity. He was asked in substance what mental condition was indicated in the defendant at the time he was seen by Mrs. Squires, supposing his conduct, language and appearance to be such as described by her, and supposing his habits to be such as shown in regard to drink. The counsel for the State [433 N.J.Super. 52] objected to the question as incompetent and immaterial to the main issue in the case. The counsel for the defendant then stated that they proposed to show by the witness that the defendant, at the time of the alleged confession, was laboring under delirium tremens. The counsel for the State repeated their objection, and the objection was sustained. In this we think that the court erred. Where a confession is shown, and there is evidence tending to show that the defendant, at the time of the confession, was laboring under delirium tremens, or was otherwise insane, we think that the opinion of an expert may properly be taken upon the defendant's mental condition as indicated by the proven facts. We see no reason why his insanity may not be established by any kind of evidence which is employed in any case to establish such a fact.
[ State v. Feltes, 51 Iowa 495, 1 N.W. 755, 760 (1879).]
Hence, it is well established that a defendant has the right to present expert psychological testimony bearing on the reliability of his confession.
Nonetheless, that right has limits. While a defendant may present expert testimony bearing on psychological diagnoses that require knowledge outside the understanding of lay jurors, an expert may not testify to factors within the ken of the average juror. See Rosales, supra, 202 N.J. at 563, 998 A.2d 459. Thus, expert testimony is unnecessary to explain to jurors why a defendant might have falsely confessed after the police allegedly threatened to electrocute him. Id. at 566, 998 A.2d 459. Nor may an expert invade the jury's role by testifying that a defendant " confessed to a crime he did not commit." Id. at 552, 998 A.2d 459.
While Rosales upheld the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony about false confessions, we find the State's heavy reliance on Rosales to be misplaced. In Rosales, the Court cited King and Free with approval. It found that, as in Free and unlike in King, the expert evidence Rosales offered consisted of generalities about false confessions, untethered to any recognized psychological disorder.
In the present case, we agree with the Appellate Division's conclusion that the proposed expert opinion of Dr. Latimer was more akin to the expert testimony disallowed in Free, supra, and unlike the expert testimony allowed in King, supra.
Page 511
Here, defendant had no longstanding prior diagnosis of a mental disorder. Instead, in support of defendant's motion to allow expert testimony on false confessions, Dr. Latimer simply alluded to defendant's generalized notions of anxiety and fear in the interrogation setting, as well as his education and national origin.
[433 N.J.Super. 53] Simply stated, we find nothing exceptional about this case to require an expert to opine that defendant gave a false confession. The average juror would understand defendant's argument that because he was threatened with immediate death by electrocution he gave a false confession to save his life.
[ Id. at 566, 998 A.2d 459.]
The Court also found that, on the record presented, the proposed testimony " was not about a field that is at a 'state of the art' to be considered sufficiently reliable." Id. at 565, 998 A.2d 459.[4] For future guidance, the Court provided a general principle for evaluating expert witness testimony concerning confessions:
We recognize that in some other case the evidence presented may satisfy the New Jersey Rules of Evidence to permit expert testimony regarding a defendant's confession. We are in general accord with the Attorney General's suggestion that New Jersey should follow the following principle:
[E]xpert witnesses may testify to a witness's or defendant's mental disorder and the hypothetical effect of that disorder. Expert witnesses may not, however, render an opinion on the defendant's veracity or reliability of a confession because whether a confession is reliable is a matter in the jury's exclusive province; it is essential that the testimony actually tell jurors something they would not otherwise know from their usual human experience and that it remain hypothetical or theoretical, and it must stop short of expressing the expert's judgment on the defendant's reliability in the specific instance of the confession submitted for the jury's consideration.
[ Id. at 566-67, 998 A.2d 459 (quoting 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law 1444 (2006) (footnotes omitted)).]
The Court analogized that principle to the rule allowing expert opinion on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome " 'to describe traits found in victims of such abuse'" but not to assess witness credibility or other " 'ultimate issues that are for jury resolution.'" Id. at 567, 998 A.2d 459 (quoting State v. J.Q., 130 N.J. 554, 556, 617 A.2d 1196 (1993)). The Court drew the same analogy to expert testimony on battered woman's syndrome. Ibid. (citing State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 492-93, 897 A.2d 316 (2006)).
[433 N.J.Super. 54] This holding was consistent with the Court's prior ruling in State v. Vandeweaghe, 177 N.J. 229, 827 A.2d 1028 (2003). In Vandeweaghe, a defense expert testified, based on defendant's history of alcohol addiction and his physical symptoms at the time of the crime, that defendant was so intoxicated that he could not form the mens rea to commit purposeful or knowing murder. Id. at 234, 827 A.2d 1028. In rebuttal, the State produced an expert who testified that because defendant was a longstanding alcoholic, he was actually less likely to be affected by ingesting large amounts of alcohol. Id. at 234-35, 827 A.2d 1028. The Court expressed no disapproval
Page 512
of either expert's testimony about the effects of defendant's alcohol addiction. However, the Court held it was prejudicial error for the State's expert to also testify that the defendant suffered from an antisocial personality disorder that made him more likely to lie and lie successfully. Id. at 239-40, 827 A.2d 1028. That testimony " impermissibly usurped the jury's exclusive role in assessing witness' credibility." Id. at 239, 827 A.2d 1028.
In State v. Townsend, supra, 186 N.J. at 479, 897 A.2d 316, the State sought to present expert testimony on the issue of battered woman's syndrome, to explain why the victim's dying declaration, which exculpated the defendant, might not be credible. As in this case, the expert's testimony was intended to explain to the jury why a statement normally considered reliable (there, a dying declaration; here, a confession) might be unreliable. The Court held that the expert testimony was admissible. Id. at 499, 897 A.2d 316; see People v. Kowalski, 492 Mich. 106, 821 N.W.2d 14, 36 (Mich. 2012) (noting that " circumstances of a false confession are beyond the average person's understanding" and expert testimony " can help jurors understand . . . counterintuitive behavior." ).
In State v. Burr, 195 N.J. 119, 948 A.2d 627 (2008), the Court held that the defendant could present expert testimony about Asberger's syndrome in order to explain to the jury defendant's seemingly odd or suspicious behavior. Citing King with approval, the Court reviewed the myriad situations in which expert psychiatric [433 N.J.Super. 55] testimony was appropriate. Id. at 128, 948 A.2d 627. " [E]vidence of mental defect, illness, or condition has been admitted . . . to assess credibility or otherwise evaluate the subjective perceptions of an actor." Ibid. The Court noted that those permissible purposes included evaluating a " defendant's false confession claim." Ibid.
Applying the above cited cases to the record before us, we agree with the trial judge that this case is similar to King and dissimilar to Rosales and Free. Drug addiction and withdrawal are recognized physical and psychological conditions that defendant's expert was well qualified to explain to the jury. See N.J.R.E. 702; King, supra, 387 N.J.Super. at 544, 904 A.2d 808. Further, lay jurors might not perceive all of the ways in which a person experiencing heroin withdrawal could be vulnerable to giving a false confession.[5] See N.J.R.E. 702. At the N.J.R.E. 104 hearing, the expert cogently explained the myriad agonizing symptoms of withdrawal and why lay persons might not understand the extent of withdrawal's effects on an addict.
From Crane, we derive the bedrock principle that, to have a meaningful opportunity to attack the credibility of his confession, a defendant must be able to present relevant testimony that will assist the jury in its evaluation of the confession's reliability. If a defendant has a recognized, diagnosed mental condition, of a type that could make him or her more vulnerable to giving a false confession, the defense has the right to present an expert to explain the mental condition and to explain how and why it could affect the confession's reliability.
Page 513
This case illustrates the importance of such testimony. The State's case rests heavily, if not exclusively, on defendant's confession. The prosecutor stated at the N.J.R.E. 104 hearing that the forensic evidence was inconclusive. The co-defendants have not implicated defendant in the crime, although one co-defendant pled [433 N.J.Super. 56] guilty and received a forty-five year sentence. The trial judge noted, during the hearing, that many aspects of defendant's confession may present fodder for cross-examination of the police who conducted the interrogation. Those include contradictions between what defendant admitted he did to the victim and the forensic evidence found on her body, as well as the manner in which the police conducted the questioning. However, as defense counsel noted, without the expert's testimony about the physical and mental effects of heroin withdrawal, the defense would be hamstrung in explaining to the jury why defendant would admit to a crime he did not commit. See Crane, supra, 476 U.S. at 689, 106 S.Ct. at 2146, 90 L.Ed.2d at 644.
As in King, we agree that an expert may testify that the defendant's diagnosed mental problems made the defendant vulnerable to giving a false confession and had the capacity to affect the reliability of the defendant's confession. King, supra, 387 N.J.Super. at 537-39, 904 A.2d 808. In other words, the defendant's mental condition may provide an explanation, other than the truth, for the defendant's confession. In that connection, the expert may explain the nature and symptoms of the defendant's mental condition (in this case, heroin addiction and withdrawal) and may explain how those symptoms could have affected defendant's responses during the interrogation. From our reading of Rosales, we conclude that the expert may not opine that the confession was unreliable, was not credible, or was false. Those issues are for the jury to decide. Moreover, the trial court should provide the jurors with an appropriate limiting instruction to guide their consideration of the expert's testimony.
Finally, we comment on an additional, foundational issue. While an expert can testify to hearsay in explaining his opinion, see N.J.R.E. 703(3), the jury cannot consider the included hearsay for its truth. Thus, a defendant may not place before the jury the facts critical to his defense by relying on included hearsay in his expert's opinion. In this case, there must be some legally competent evidence that defendant was, in fact, suffering from heroin [433 N.J.Super. 57] withdrawal while the police were interrogating him. Otherwise, his expert's testimony would be irrelevant and a net opinion.
King addressed the issue of included hearsay within a psychological expert's testimony, and our discussion there provides helpful guidance. We explained that an expert may testify to statements made to him by the defendant, in order to explain the expert's diagnosis. King, supra, 387 N.J.Super. at 548, 904 A.2d 808. However, the jury must be cautioned not to consider the defendant's statements for their truth. Id. at 549, 904 A.2d 808. The analysis in King is worth quoting at length:
Defendant's statements to the forensic psychiatrist made during the interviews present a different situation. Our courts have consistently held that a psychiatrist in a criminal case may testify as to what a defendant told him or her if the expert relied on the statements in formulating an opinion about the defendant's mental or psychiatric condition, and such hearsay declarations " constituted a necessary element in the formulation of [the] opinion."
Of course, these hearsay statements are not admitted for their truth, and the expert's testimony must be circumscribed by an appropriate limiting instruction. Moreover, if the psychiatrist's opinion hinges upon the truth of defendant's statement, the jury should be further instructed that the probative value of the psychiatrist's opinion will depend
Page 514
upon whether there is independent proof of the hearsay statement.
We are mindful of the trial court's concern about the potential for defendant to allow Dr. Harris to parrot and place before the jury defendant's version of what occurred during the interrogation, without the State's ability to cross-examine defendant. The trial court, however, erred in imposing a blanket prohibition that appears to bar testimony by Dr. Harris as to any statements made by defendant to him during the clinical interviews pertaining to the interrogation. With this limitation, we cannot perceive how Dr. Harris will be able to provide a factual basis for his opinions and present anything other than a net opinion, unworthy of any consideration.
We believe a general rule of guidance is the wiser course in the posture of this case. . . . [W]ithin the guidelines of N.J.R.E. 703 and the case law, Dr. Harris shall be permitted to testify as to those statements made to him by defendant during the clinical interviews pertaining to the interrogation that he relied on and were essential to his diagnosis of defendant's personality disorders and formulation of his medical opinion that these disorders are consistent with defendant's claim of false confession. Moreover, the information should be of a type typically relied upon in the psychiatric community in making such assessments and diagnoses.
[ Id. at 549-50, 904 A.2d 808 (citations omitted).]
In this case, the expert opined that aspects of defendant's physical conduct and appearance during the videotaped interrogation [433 N.J.Super. 58] were consistent with heroin withdrawal. The jury could observe that conduct for themselves by watching the video, and could accept or reject the expert's evaluation. The expert also relied on defendant's medical records from earlier years, which documented his long history of heroin addiction. Additionally, the expert considered the county jail's medical records, which included notations that, shortly before defendant confessed, he was treated with Librium, a drug used to blunt the effects of alcohol addiction. However, the expert also based his opinions on interviews with defendant and his family. The jury must be instructed that they cannot consider those interview statements for their truth.
As in King, we leave to the trial judge the task of ruling on specific evidentiary issues that may arise during the expert's trial testimony or during in limine motions. In that regard, we note that the expert's testimony at the Miranda hearing may serve as a sort of " dress rehearsal" for the trial, without presenting the risk of jury confusion or prejudice. The judge can readily distinguish inadmissible hearsay from admissible evidence presented at that hearing, and the hearing may provide a more complete picture of how the defense intends to use this expert's testimony at the trial and what, if any, additional factual foundation the defense may present. Nothing in our opinion precludes the State from filing an in limine motion prior to the trial to address specific evidentiary issues relating to the expert's proposed trial testimony.[6]
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Items: 0
Total amount: € 0,00
ISSUES AND ARTICLES MOST READ eTOC
Official Journal of the Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER), European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM), European Union of Medical Specialists - Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Section (UEMS-PRM), Mediterranean Forum of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (MFPRM), Hellenic Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EEFIAP)
In association with International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM)
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,063
Rocchi L. 1, 2, Merolli A. 1, Morini A. 1, Monteleone G. 3, Foti C. 2
1 Orthopedics and Hand Surgery The Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome, Italy;
2 Doctorate in Advanced Technology in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine and Sport Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy;
3 Department of Biomedicine and Prevention Medicine, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences Faculty of Medicine and Surgery Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy
Background: Rupture of ulnar collateral ligament of the thumb (UCL) represents a frequent injury of the hand. Surgical repair is considered the gold standard but postoperative immobilization causes partial stiffness in a percentage of cases.
Aim: The aim of this paper was to assess the effectiveness of a postoperative functional hand-based splint for the thumb which allows immediate postoperative motion.
Design: Randomized prospective clinical trial.
Setting: The study was carried out at the Orthopedics and Hand Surgery Unit of The Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome, Italy.
Population: Thirty consecutive patients, with a diagnosis of acute complete tear of the UCL, were selected to be treated surgically (predominantly men, mean age 39). Cases presenting associated injuries were not included.
Methods: Patients were randomized postoperatively into 2 groups of 15 (one using the new splint and the other using a standard spica splint). After four weeks of splinting, clinical outpatient evaluations were carried on (at one, two, six, twelve months) on both groups to evaluate: joint stability; pain; pinch strength; range of motion; time lost from work; sessions of physiotherapy.
Results: Immediate postoperative motion of the operated joint produced faster and better functional results. No cases of recurrence were recorded.
Conclusions: Surgical repair, combined with active metacarpophalangeal motion allowed by the new functional splint, was effective, safe and well tolerated.
Clinical rehabilitation impact: Enhancing the patients' function and reducing the time of functional recovery, the reported treatment presents potential advantages in the management of this frequent acute hand injury.
language: English


text:
Report by Resty S. Odon
Prolife Philippines celebrates the month of February as Prolife Month with a series of activities and talks. The "Respect and Care for Life Month" was kicked off by a Eucharistic celebration on Feb. 5, 2012 at the St. Andrews Cathedral in Quirino Ave., La Huerta, Parañaque City.
The main celebrant was Bishop Jesse Mercado, D.D., who was assisted by parish priest Fr. Rolando Agustin.
A banner was placed at the entrance gate and another on the facade of the church declaring the day as Prolife Sunday. The banner placed on the facade carried conspicuously the reminder that Pres. Proclamation 214 was signed in 1987 by the current pro-RH president's mother, Pres. Corazon Aquino, proclamation designating "the second week of February 1988 and every year thereafter as 'Respect and Care for Life Week' under the auspices of the Department of Social Welfare and Development and Pro-Life Philippines, and other involved entities or organizations."
Parishioners were greeted at the main door with a table occupied by members of Prolife Philippines headed by Mr. Eric Manalang. Other officers and members, including Ms. Lorna Melegrito and Marilou Agsaluna, distributed prolife and anti-RH Bill flyers, newsletters, and brochures, and sold related materials such as anti-RH pins and CDs.
Among those who attended the 10AM Mass was Paranaque Congressman Roilo Golez, who briefly greeted his constituents by quietly shaking their hands. Filipinos for Life President Anthony Perez was also present.
In his sermon, Bp. Mercado exhorted the faithful to reflect on the value of life. He urged everyone to adopt a prolife philosophy, a devotion to defending and promoting life from beginning (conception) up to the very end.
"Why (prolife)?" he said. "Because life is a gift from God, because He has a purpose in it."
He said we ought to protect life "that we may be reflectors of God's own life, of God's own love."
With a prolife outlook, he said, "we can learn how to share this life for others, with others."
"Therefore, we image who God is to others, for their own good, joy, and fullness. We become an image of God in our fullness."
He then used the day's reading on the book of Job, to bring the audience's attention to the inevitable reality of the ups and downs of life, which can be an obstacle to upholding life at all stages.
He said that life is a mountaintop experience as well as a valley of tears. Noting how the days of Job described in the Bible were "a valley of tears," he pointed out how Job nevertheless refused to question God. "Job was not discouraged," he said.
Bp. Mercado then briefly explained the distinction between discouragement and disappointment. If one is discouraged, he explained, one turns to despair. If one is just disappointed, one remains faithful despite the feelings; one trusts in God.
"You can make a choice," he said, as though to challenge the faithful. "Do you choose disappointment, or discouragement? Remain faithful, or (wallow) in despair? Trust God, or choose to die?"
"A man who works for life is for God," he said. "God can use our pains to produce something good."
"When we are successful, do we seek God?" … "In our trials, we are not alone. In the midst of the difficulties of life, life is good, life is full of blessings."
Bp. Mercado ended his homily with a summary of the prolife philosophy: "Being prolife means respecting and giving space to God. Being pro-God means love for others, having compassion for others, especially the wounded, etc. Being prolife means being pro-God and pro-others."


text:
05-14-2004, 04:05 PM #1Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Portland, OR
- Posts
- 81
[Hiring] Experienced PHP/osCommerce web designer
NOTICE: I am not interested in giving a beginner a chance, this is for a business and QUALITY is my top priority.
I'm looking for someone to take a custom web design that I'll provide you with, and put osCommerce behind it to make it a fully functioning eCommerce site without screwing up the layout.
You will also need to install the coupon system addon to oscommerce and incorporate that into the site as well.
I expect the turnaround on this project to be less then 4 days from when I hand over the design. However, the design may not be ready for another week, possibly 2.
Please reply to this thread with your quote and provide examples of previous work.
I will be paying via PayPal.
05-14-2004, 07:26 PM #2New Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- Ontario
- Posts
- 0
Hi Kurt,
With over 2 1/2 year experience working with oscommerce exclusively (programming), I can do this for you without difficulty. I have installed the coupon/gift voucher too many times to count now.
my email is pmcgrath (at) systemsmanager.net
my web site is
some sites I have worked on with oscommerce
and many more....
cheers and look forward to hearing from yourself....
Peter M.
05-14-2004, 09:16 PM #3Managed Service Provider
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 5,627
I don't like to post my personal contact for the spam bots to pick-up so you've got a PM I too have been working with osc for 2+ years and I'd be happy to do it.
05-14-2004, 11:38 PM #4Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Portland, OR
- Posts
- 81
Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested in this project.
Also include a quote if possible.


text:
Broccoli Rigatoni
Total Time
Prep 15 mins
Cook 15 mins
As taught to me by my next-door neighbor, a lovely Italian lady who never failed to let me in on her cooking secrets as a child... I like it because it doesn't have an extra step of steaming the broccoli.
Ingredients Nutrition
- 16 ounces rigatoni pasta (or other shaped pasta)
- 4 tablespoons butter (or margarine)
- 1⁄4 cup olive oil
- 12 garlic cloves (minced or pressed)
- 1 1⁄2-2 lbs broccoli florets, cut into bite-size florets
- 1 cup vegetable broth (or chicken broth)
- 1 bunch fresh basil, chiffonaded
- salt and pepper
- 1⁄2 cup parmeggiano parmigiano-reggiano cheese (or a blend of parm. and romano, or vegan cheese topping)
- Cook pasta according to directions.
- Melt butter together with olive oil in large skillet with cover or dutch oven (ideally large enough to hold all of your ingredients together).
- Cook garlic until no longer raw, but don't allow to brown. Add broccoli to the pan, constantly stirring, until broccoli is completely coated in the oil and garlic and pan is very hot. Add broth, and immediately cover.
- Steam until broccoli is tender. Turn off heat and stir in the fresh basil.
- Combine pasta and broccoli. Season with salt and pepper according to taste. Serve topped liberally with cheese.
Most Helpful
LizzyMommy this is GREAT!!!!! I am eating and typing together here. The basil does it! I have made broc/pasta many times as my mom used to make this so do I but with the fresh basil from the garden it tops it off. I used lemon basil and I ,must say the brightness that comes from the flavors is delightful. Sipping my basil lemonade and eating on a nice summer afternoon. Thank you.
Tastes great,a typical country Italian Recipe-simple, but tastes eligant. I added more cheese,plus added butter too.
Very tasty! Probably much better when done correctly, but I made it using what I already had in the house. Olive oil, butter, garlic cloves, a bag of frozen chopped brocolli, chicken broth, garlic pepper seasoning, italian seasoning, a mix of macaroni pasta and spinach and cheese stuffed tortellini. Turned out great though. Yum! Thanks!


text:
The average cost for a Cylinder Head Replacement is between $1853 and $2260. Labor costs are estimated between $1548 and $1954 while parts are priced between $305 and $306. Estimate does not include taxes and fees.
Cylinder Head Replacement Cost for Subaru BRZ
Cylinder Head Replacement Estimate (National Average)
Validated estimate range for national average.
View Estimate Details
Parts & Labor Breakdown
Labor: $1548 - $1954
Parts: $305 - $306
Estimate does not include taxes and fees.
Last step before receiving your estimate:


text:
You guys really have to watch out for this one...
Not only does Jaimie Alexander looks ravishing in her character but the plot is bound to keep you on the edge, awaiting the pilot.
'Blindspot' is NBC's latest series about a Jane Doe found in Times Square with no memory of who she was nor can she explain what the tattoos all over her body meant.
They soon discover that her tattoos are actually linked to crimes waiting to be solved and her body is the key.
'Blindspot' is being produced by Greg Berlanti, the man responsible for 'Arrow' and 'The Flash'. It premiers on September 21, 2015.