JUDGE PONDERS PURPOSE OF SEEKING NEW CHARGES

His Concern Is That The Prosecution Is Prejudicing Case
Against Pain Specialist

The federal court has yet to decide whether to grant a defense motion
to dismiss the new indictment, which contains 313 charges.

A federal judge questioned whether prosecutors in a case against a
Roanoke pain specialist, two of his former employees and two former
colleagues may have prejudiced the case against them by returning to
the grand jury repeatedly to seek new charges.

At a hearing in federal court Monday, U.S. District Judge Samuel
Wilson expressed concern that prosecutors in the case are controlling
when the case of Cecil Knox, Beverly Gale Boone, Tiffany Durham,
William Newbill James and Kathleen O'Gee will go to trial.

Less than two months before their trial, it is still unclear how many
charges the defendants face. Federal prosecutors sought the new
indictment last month, and Wilson has yet to rule on whether he will
grant defense attorneys' motions to dismiss the new indictment.

Knox, Boone and Durham face charges of conspiracy, health care fraud,
mail fraud, obstruction of justice, payment and receipt of kickbacks,
illegal drug distribution that resulted in the death or serious injury
of patients, and prescription of drugs for no legitimate medical
purpose. Knox and Boone also face racketeering charges. The new
indictment also alleges that Knox traded OxyContin prescriptions for
marijuana.

Wilson said at the hearing that the prosecution's seeking new charges
in the case could constitute hardship and prejudice against the
defendants, who have to keep waiting for their trial and keep paying
legal fees.

Wilson also questioned again why federal prosecutors chose to respond
to his order seeking more information on some of the 58 charges that
replaced the original indictment with the new indictment that
contained 313 charges.

U.S. Attorney John Brownlee argued that the new indictment, which
contained mostly drug charges leveled against Knox, Boone and Durham
was both conservative and proper. Their trial is set to start Jan.
6.

Later in the hearing, Brownlee also suggested that a private
investigator working on the defense team might have intimidated
witnesses in the case.

Brownlee did not name the investigator nor put forward any evidence
that the investigator may have intimidated witnesses. But federal
prosecutors have subpoenaed Roanoke private investigator Pete
Sullivan's personnel records from the more than two decades Sullivan
worked as a Roanoke police officer. Brownlee would not elaborate after
the hearing on his comments.

Sullivan is working for the defense team for Knox, his attorney Tony
Anderson said.

"I'd be shocked if there's been any intimidation by the defense team,"
Anderson said.

Roanoke attorney Gary Lumsden, who is trying to keep Sullivan's
records from being released, argued that federal prosecutors were
trying to intimidate his client, who has done nothing wrong.

"It's a fishing expedition," said Lumsden, though he did say that
Sullivan had been in contact with witnesses for the prosecution in the
case, as is standard procedure.