Appendix — United States v. Moore
Supreme Court brief1975
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
—
Supreme Goort, U. &.
FILED
MAY 2 1975
APPENDIX
I., CLERK
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1974
No. 74-759
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner
—v.—
THOMAS W. MOORE, JR.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED DECEMBER 17, 1974
CERTIORARI GRANTED FEBRUARY 18, 1975
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1974
No. 74-759
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner
— :
THOMAS W. Moore, JR.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
INDEX*
Page
e / Se 12
e ee 3-29
38- count retyped indictment submitted to the jury 30-34
Excerpts from the transcript of proceedings before the
Honorable Gerhard A. Gesell on September 12, 1972 386-38
Excerpts from the trial transcript ..........000.0000000000 0. 38-125
* A copy of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit was filed as Appendix A to the
petition for a writ of certiorari (pp. la-48a). The judgment of
the court of appeals was reproduced as Appendix B to the petition
(pp. 49a-50a).
ii INDEX
Page
Excerpts from the trial transcript—Continued
yl OD Of ee 38-45
Testimony of Ken Bryan rs 46-52
Testimony of Forris Ensoer 53-57
Testimony of Roger W. Wheel 58
Lx . 59-64
Testimony of William N. Burgee 65-67
Testimony of Jerome Brooks .................-cccccscccscccsssssccossecees 68-71
Testimony of Herbert B. Holland ..................................... 72-73
Testimony of Kenneth A. Brown 0000...0.0202.2......:cccceecceeeeee 74-77
Testimony of Dr. David H. Fraaa——uü—mü—mü—õ 78-83
Testimony of Dr. Thomas E. Piemme ................................ 84-90
Testimony of Agent William J. Miller 91-96
Testimony of Thomas W. Moore, Ir. 97-116
Court’s instructions to the jura 117-125
Transcript of sentencing proceedings before the Honorable
Gerhard A. Gesell on November 13, 1972 .......................... 126-134
e d 135-138
DLL . 139-141
L cccsccccccsscsncssssenisnisecsiitmia 142
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Criminal No. 1350-72
UNITED STATES
—
THOMAS W. Moore, JR.
RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES
DATE PROCEEDINGS
1972
> > * 7
July 13 Deft. handed copy of Indictment. ARRAIGNED:
Plea Not Guilty.
* > > >
Sept 5 Motion to suppress & for return of property. C/S
P/A FIAT—GESELL,
Sept 12 Status Conference: Trial is set for 10-16-72 at
9:30 A.M.; Bond. GESELL, J. Rep-Harper;
Edwin Brown; Atty.
Sept 14 Govt’s opposition to Motion to suppress. C/S
Sept 21 Transcript of proceedings of Sept. 12, 1972; pages
1-12; Court’s Rep-P. Harper
Sept 25 ORDER denying motion of deft. to suppress and
for return of prop GESELL, J. (N)
Sept 26 Govt's notice of intention to sever counts c/s
> > > *
Oct 16 Retyped indictment filed.; Motion of Govt to sever
counts, Granted; Case called for trial.
> > * *
2
DATE PROCEEDINGS
1972
Oct 21 Trial resumed * * *, VERDICT: GUILTY on
Counts 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23,
24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 & 37 of the retyped
indictment
> > > >
Nov 20 Notice of appeal from sentence of Nov. 13, 1972.
7. > .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Holding a Criminal Term
Grand Jury Sworn in on April 3, 1972
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
THOMAS W. Moore, IR.
Criminal No.
U. S. Mag. No. 22-531-72
Violation: 21 U.S.C. 841 (a)
(Unlawful Distribution and Dispensation
of Controlled Substance)
The Grand Jury charges:
COUNTS 1 THROUGH 35
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II, —— drug controlled substance to, Bobby J. King,
as fol ;
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
September 27, 1971
October 4, 1971
October 12, 1971
Octoher 16, 1971
October 26, 1971
October 29, 1971
October 81, 1971
November 6, 1971
November 8, 1971
November 12, 1971
. ο ann ow
—
8888888888
—
o
W
4 5
COUNT DATS AMOUNT OF TABLETS II, nareotie drug controlled substance to, James Silk, as
11 November 17, 1971 50 follows:
12 November 22, 1971 50 COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
13 November 24, 1971 50 86 August 27, 1971 50
14 November 29, 1971 50 37 August 30, 1971 75
15 December 1, 1971 50 * un 100
* December 3, 1971 50 39 September 3, 1971 50
17 December 6, 1971 100 © September 36, 1971 50
41 September 27, 1971 100
18 December 9, 1971 50
19 December 11, 1971 100 42 September 28, 1971 75
43 October 4, 1971 50
20 December 14, 1971 100 4“ 6, 1971 90
21 December 16, 1971 100 a Deteber 8, 1971 —
22 December 17, 1971 100 46 October 12, 1971 100
23 January 5. 1972 50 47 October 16, 1971 100
2 Jemmary 6, 05 * 48 October 19, 1971 60
25 January 10, 1972 wat 49 October 21, 1971 100
26 January 10, 1972 50 50 October 25, 1971 100
27 January 17, 1972 100 | 51 October 28, 1971 100
28 January 19, 1972 100 52 October 30, 1971 100
29 January 21, 1972 100 | 53 November 1, 1971 100
30 January 25, 1972 50 | 54 November 6, 1971 100
31 January 26, 1972 100 | 55 November 8, 1971 100
32 January 28, 1972 50 56 November 15, 1971 100
33 February 1, 1972 50 57 November 17, 1971 100
34 February 4, 1972 100 58 November 19, 1971 75
35 February 8, 1972 100 59 November 24, 1971 50
60 November 29, 1971 100
COUNTS 36 THROUGH 77 61 December 3, 1971 100
62 December 10, 1971 100
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each 63 December 11, 1971 50
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein, 64 December 13, 1971 100
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw- 65 December 17, 1971 100
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified 66 December 20, 1971 100
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule 67 December 21, 1971 150
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
68 December 23, 1971 150
69 January 7, 1972 150
70 January 10, 1972 100
71 January 12, 1972 100
72 January 14, 1972 100
73 January 25, 1972 100
74 January 26, 1972 100
75 January 28, 1972 100
76 February 4, 1972 100
77 February 8, 1972 150
COUNTS 78 THROUGH 86
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to Carol Timmons,
as follows:
COUNT — DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
August 30, 1971
September 2, 1971
September 3, 1971
September 24, 1971
September 27, 1971
September 28, 1971
October 6, 1971
October 8, 1971
October 12, 1971
COUNTS 87 THROUGH 111
ss
88 2888888
8888888
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
87
7
DATE
November 1, 1971
November 8, 1971
November 16, 1971
November 19, 1971
November 22, 1971
November 24, 1971
November 29, 1971
December 1, 1971
December 3, 1971
December 8, 1971
December 10, 1971
December 16, 1971
December 17, 1971
December 20, 1971
January 5, 1972
January 7, 1972
January 11, 1972
January 13, 1972
January 17, 1972
January 19, 1972
January 21, 1972
January 25, 1972
January 28, 1972
January 31, 1972
February 4, 1972
COUNTS 112 THROUGH 115
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE. J
within the District of Columbi
R., the defendant herein,
a, knowingly and unlaw-
8
* * 7 ‘ 7 fi ed
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter speci
— of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II nareotie drug controlled substance to, Karen Bryan,
also known as Lynn A. Ryan, as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
112 February 2. 197 50
113 February 4, 1972 50
114 February 8, 1972 100
115 February 9, 1972 150
COUNTS 116 THROUGH 146
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Ivan Gower, as
follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
116 September 3, 1971 100
117 September 20, 1971 100
118 September 24, 1971 100
119 September 27, 1971 50
120 October 4, 1971 50
121 October 6, 1971 75
122 October 8, 1971 50
123 October 11, 1971 50
124 October 18, 1971 100
125 October 20, 1971 50
126 October 26, 1971 75
127 October 28, 1971 50
128 November 1, 1971 50
129 November 4, 1971 50
130 November 6, 1971 100
131 November 9, 1971 100
9
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
132 November 12, 1971 50
133 November 15, 1971 100
134 November 17, 1971 75
135 December 20, 1971 75
136 December 22, 1971 100
137 January 10, 1972 100
138 January 13, 1972 50
139 January 14, 1972 50
140 January 18, 1972 100
141 January 24, 1972 50
142 January 26, 1972 100
143 January 28, 1972 50
144 January 31, 1972 100
145 February 4, 1972 100
146 February 7, 1972 100
COUNTS 147 THROUGH 172
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Forris Ensor,
as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
147 August 27, 1971 100
148 September 2, 1971 100
149 September 7, 1971 100
150 September 24, 1971 100
151 September 29, 1971 100
152 October 4, 1971 100
153 October 8, 1971 100
154 October 15, 1971 100
155 October 26, 1971 100
10
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
156 October 28, 1971 100
157 November 3, 1971 100
158 November 10, 1971 100
159 November 12, 1971 100
160 November 17, 1971 100
161 November 19, 1971 100
162 November 24, 1971 100
163 November 29, 1971 100
164 December 3, 1971 100
165 December 6, 1971 100
166 December 10, 1971 100
167 December 13, 1971 100
168 December 17, 1971 100
169 December 20, 1971 100
170 December 22, 1971 75
171 December 27, 1971 100
172 January 4, 1972 100
COUNTS 173 THROUGH 195
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligrams dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Raymond Bow-
ings, as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
173 September 29, 1971 50
174 October 1, 1971 100
175 October 6, 1971 100
176 October 11, 1971 100
177 October 18, 1971 100
178 October 27, 1971 100
179 October 30, 1971 100
COUNT
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
11
DATE
November 5, 1971
November 12, 1971
November 16, 1971
November 23, 1971
November 29, 1971
December 7, 1971
December 11, 1971
December 18, 1971
January 5, 1972
January 10, 1972
January 18, 1972
January 21, 1972
January 24, 1972
January 31, 1972
February 3, 1972
February 9, 1972
_ AMOUNT OF TABLETS
100
100 °
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
COUNTS 196 THROUGH 244
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Chris Scheper,
as follows:
COUNT
196
DATE
September 3, 1971
September 27, 1971
September 29, 1971
October 20, 1971
October 4, 1971
October 6, 1971
October 8, 1971
October 12, 1971
_ AMOUNT OF TABLETS
88888888
12
DATE
October 14, 1971
October 18, 1971
October 22, 1971
October 25, 1971
October 27, 1971
October 29, 1971
November 1, 1971
November 3, 1971
Novenber 5, 1971
November 8, 1971
November 10, 1971
November 12, 1971
November 15, 1971
November 17, 1971
November 19, 1971
November 22, 1971
November 24, 1971
November 29, 1971
December 1, 1971
December 3, 1971
December 6, 1971
December 8, 1971
December 10, 1971
December 13, 1971
December 15, 1971
December 17, 1971
December 20, 1971
December 22, 1971
December 23, 1971
January 6, 1972
January 10, 1972
January 12, 1972
January 14, 1972
January 17, 1972
AMOUNT OF TABLETS
8888
8
8 8888888888 888888888888 888 8
100
13
DATE
January 19, 1972
January 21, 1972
January 25, 1972
January 27, 1972
January 31, 1972
February 2, 1972
February 7, 1972
AMOUNT OF TABLETS
COUNTS 245 THROUGH 278
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Herbert Bruce
Holland, as follows:
COUNT
DATE
August 30, 1971
September 3, 1971
September 20, 1971
September 28, 1971
October 12, 1971
October 18, 1971
October 23, 1971
October 29, 1971
November 3, 1971
November 6, 1971
November 10, 1971
November 16, 1971
November 20, 1971
November 29, 1971
December 3, 1971
December 9, 1971
December 11, 1971
AMOUNT OF TABLETS
100
100
14
DATE
December 14, 1971
December 17, 1971
December 20, 1971
December 21, 1971
December 23, 1971
December 24, 1971
January 5, 1972
January 6, 1972
January 10, 1972
January 14, 1972
January 18, 1972
January 21, 1972
January 28, 1972
January 31, 1972
February 2, 1972
February 8, 1972
February 9, 1972
_ AMOUNT OF TABLETS
75
50
100
COUNTS 279 THROUGH 283
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
15
COUNTS 284 THROUGH 331
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to Roger Wheeler,
as follows:
COUNT DATE
August 26, 1971
August 30, 1971
September 3, 1971 1
September 28, 1971
October 1, 1971
October 4, 1971
October 7, 1971
October 8, 1971
October 11, 1971
October 14, 1971
October 18, 1971
October 20, 1971
October 23, 1971
October 26, 1971
AMOUNT OF TABLETS
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled sustance to, Stephen Frank-
lin, as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
279 January 12, 1972 50
280 January 21, 1972 100
281 January 28, 1972 100
282 February 2, 1972 150
283 February 9, 1972 200
October 29, 1971
November 1, 1971
November 3, 1971
November 8, 1971
November 10, 1971
November 15, 1971
November 17, 1971
November 19, 1971
November 22, 1971
November 24,- 1971
November 29, 1971
December 1, 1971
SSSSSsSsSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
ä ee |____
16
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
310 December 3, 1971 50
311 December 6, 1971 50
312 December 8, 1971 50
313 December 10, 1971 50
314 December 13, 1971 50
315 December 15, 1971 50
316 December 17, 1971 50
317 December 20, 1971 50
318 December 22, 1971 50
319 December 23, 1971 50
320 December 24, 1971 50
321 December 28, 1971 50
322 January 10, 1972 100
323 January 12, 1972 50
324 January 14, 1972 50
325 January 19, 1972 50
326 January 21, 1972 50
327 January 24, 1972 50
328 January 26, 1972 50
329 January 27, 1972 50
330 February 1, 1972 50
331 February 4, 1972 50
COUNTS 332 THROUGH 358
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Robert Cernig-
lia, as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
332 November 2, 1971 100
333 November 16, 1971 50
—
17
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
334 November 20, 1971 75
335 November 23, 1971 75
336 November 30, 1971 50
337 December 4, 1971 75
338 December 8, 1971 50
339 December 9, 1971 50
340 December 11, 1971 50
341 December 14, 1971 50
342 December 18, 1971 75
343 December 22, 1971 75
344 December 24, 1971 50
345 January 5, 1972 75
346 January 7, 1972 50
347 January 10, 1972 75
348 January 13, 1972 75
349 January 17, 1972 100
350 January 20, 1972 109
351 January 21, 1972 50
352 January 24, 1972 75
353 January 27, 1972 50
354 January 28, 1972 75
355 January 31, 1972 100
356 February 2, 1972 100
357 February 4, 1972 100
358 February 8, 1972 150
COUNTS 359 THROUGH 360
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
18
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Richard L.
Jacob, also known as Lloyd Johnson, as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
359 January 26, 1972 50
360 January 31, 1972 100
COUNTS 361 THROUGH 393
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Robert Fennell,
as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
361 October 1, 1971 50
362 October 6, 1971 50
363 October 14, 1971 50
364 October 16, 1971 100
365 October 20, 1971 100
366 October 27, 1971 50
367 October 29, 1971 50
368 November 5, 1971 100
369 November 8, 1971 50
370 November 12, 1971 100
371 November 16, 1971 100
372 November 20, 1971 100
373 November 24, 1971 100
374 November 29, 1971 100
375 December 3, 1971 100
376 December 9, 1971 100
377 December 1. 1971 100
378 December 14, 1971 50
379 December 15, 1971 100
380 December 17, 1971 100
ü Pf 7˖r „
19
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
381 December 20, 1971 100
382 December 23, 1971 100
383 December 24, 1971 100
384 January 5, 1972 100
385 January 6, 1972 100
386 January 10, 1972 100
387 January 18, 1972 100
388 January 20, 1972 100
389 January 24, 1972 100
390 January 27, 1972 100
391 January 31, 1972 100
392 February 3, 1972 100
393 February 9, 1972 100
COUNTS 394 THROUGH 420
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, John J. Evans,
as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
394 October 22, 1971 50
395 October 27, 1971 50
396 November 16, 1971 50
397 November 23, 1971 100
398 November 29, 1971 50
399 December 1, 1971 75
400 December 3, 1971 75
401 December 6, 1971 75
402 December 10, 1971 100
403 December 13, 1971 75
404 December 15, 1971 75
20
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
405 December 17, 1971 50
406 December 22, 1971 50
407 January 7, 1972 50
408 January 10, 1972 75
409 January 12, 1972 100
410 January 14, 1972 100
411 January 17, 1972 50
412 January 19, 1972 50
413 January 21, 1972 50
414 January 24, 1972 75
415 January 26, 1972 50
416 January 28, 1972 100
417 January 31, 1972 75
418 February 2, 1972 100
419 February 4, 1972 100
420 February 9, 1972 75
COUNTS 421 THROUGH 426
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, William N.
Burgee, as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
421 January 25, 1972 50
422 January 28, 1972 100
423 February 1, 1972 150
424 February 2, 1972 100
425 February 7, 1972 150
426 February 9, 1972 150
23 — ee ee
——
21
COUNTS 427 THROUGH 452
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Elmer Daniel,
as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
427 October 11, 1971 100
428 October 15, 1971 50
429 October 18, 1971 75
430 October 20, 1971 75
431 October 22, 1971 75
432 October 27, 1971 75
433 November 3, 1971 75
434 November 10, 1971 100
435 November 15, 1971 50
436 November 18, 1971 50
437 November 20, 1971 75
438 November 23, 1971 75
439 November 29, 1971 75
440 December 2, 1971 100
441 December 4, 1971 100
442 December 10, 1971 100
443 December 14, 1971 100
444 December 17, 1971 100
445 December 21, 1971 75
446 December 23, 1971 100
447 December 24, 1971 100
448 January 7, 1972 75
449 January 10, 1972 50
450 January 25, 1972 75
451 January 27, 1972 75
452 February 7, 1972 100
22
COUNTS 453 THROUGH 455
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, William Miller,
as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
453 January 13, 1972 50
454 January 18, 1972 100
455 January 24, 1972 100
COUNTS 456 THROUGH 503
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotie drug controlled substance to, John Amtmann,
as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
456 September 1, 1971 50
457 September 10, 1971 50
458 September 20, 1971 75
459 October 8, 1971 75
460 October 11, 1971 100
461 October 14, 1971 110
462 October 18, 1971 100
463 October 21, 1971 75
464 October 25, 1971 50
465 October 28, 1971 50
466 October 29, 1971 100
467 November 2, 1971 100
468 November 4, 1971 100
—
—
DATE
November 8, 1971
November 13, 1971
November 15, 1971
November 17, 1971
November 19, 1971
November 22, 1971
November 24, 1971
November 29, 1971
December 1, 1971
December 3, 1971
December 6, 1971
December 8, 1971
December 10, 1971
December 13, 1971
December 15, 1971
December 17, 1971
December 20, 1971
December 21. 1971
December 24, 1971
December 28, 1971
January 5, 1972
January 7, 1972
January 10, 1972
January 12, 1972
January 14, 1972
January 17, 1972
January 19, 1972
January 21, 1972
January 24, 1972
January 26, 1972
January 28, 1972
January 31, 1972
February 2, 1972
February 4, 1972
February 9, 1972
AMOUNT OF TABLETS
50
100
75
50
100
100
75
75
75
24
COUNTS 504 THROUGH 519
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Jerome Brooks,
as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
504 September 30, 1971 50
505 October 16, 1971 50
506 November 2, 1971 50
507 November 4, 1971 50
508 November 8, 1971 75
509 November 12, 1971 75
510 November 16, 1971 75
511 November 23, 1971 50
512 December 8, 1971 100
513 December 14, 1971 50
514 December 22, 1971 100
515 December 23, 1971 50
516 January 14, 1972 100
517 January 20, 1972 100
518 January 27, 1972 50
519 February 9, 1972 50
COUNTS 520 THROUGH 548
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
— TT —
—— ————
II nareotie drug controlled substance to, John Gately,
as follows:
COUNT
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
25
DATE
August 27, 1971
September 3, 1971
September 28, 1971
October 4, 1971
October 7, 1971
October 11, 1971
October 15, 1971
October 22, 1971
October 26, 1971
October 30, 1971
November 2, 1971
November 6, 1971
November 10, 1971
November 15, 1971
November 20, 1971
November 24, 1971
November 30, 1971
December 4, 1971
December 8, 1971
December 13, 1971
December 18, 1971
December 22, 1971
December 24, 1971
January 5, 1972
January 12, 1972
January 18, 1972
January 26, 1972
February 1, 1972
February 8, 1972
AMOUNT OF TABLETS
26
COUNTS 549 THROUGH 576
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Robert Povleski,
as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
549 August 26, 1971 100
50 September 2, 1971 100
551 September 8, 1971 100
552 September 20, 1971 75
553 September 27, 1971 75
554 October 1, 1971 100
555 October 12, 1971 100
556 October 15, 1971 100
557 October 22, 1971 100
558 October 25, 1971 75
559 October 29, 1971 100
560 November 2, 1971 100
561 November 5, 1971 100
562 November 9, 1971 100
563 November 12, 1971 100
564 November 16, 1971 100
565 November 19, 1971 100
566 November 22, 1971 100
567 November 24, 1971 100
568 November 30, 1971 100
569 December 3, 1971 100
570 December 7, 1971 100
571 December 10, 1971 100
572 December 13, 1971 100
573 December 17, 1971 100
574 December 20, 1971 100
27
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
575 December 22, 1971 50
576 December 24, 1971 150
COUNTS 577 THROUGH 606
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, James B. Fra-
zier, as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
577 August 27, 1971 50
578 September 3, 1971 75
579 September 27, 1971 75
580 October 1, 1971 75
581 October 4, 1971 75
582 October 8, 1971 50
583 October 12, 1971 75
584 October 15, 1971 75
585 October 18, 1971 100
586 October 20, 1971 50
587 October 23, 1971 50
588 October 26, 1971 50
589 October 30, 1971 50
590 November 4, 1971 50
591 November 8, 1971 50
592 November 17, 1971 50
593 November 22, 1971 50
594 November 29, 1971 50
595 November 30, 1971 50
596 December 3, 1971 100
597 December 13, 1971 50
598 December 20, 1971 100
28
DATE
January 7, 1972
January 11, 1972
January 17, 1972
January 21, 1972
January 25, 1972
February 1, 1972
February 4, 1972
February 7, 1972
AMOUNT OF TABLETS
100
50
75
100
75
50
50
75
COUNTS 607 THROUGH 639
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule
II narcotic drug controlled substance to, Dennis Smith,
as follows:
COUNT
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
DATE
August 30, 1971
September 2, 1971
September 24, 1971
September 28, 1971
October 1, 1971
October 4, 1971
October 8, 1971
October 12, 1971
October 15, 1971
October 18, 1971
October 22, 1971
October 26, 1971
October 29, 1971
November 2, 1971
November 5, 1971
November 8, 1971
AMOUNT OF TABLETS
~
or
888888888
8
2
3
DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
November 11, 1971
November 16, 1971
November 19, 1971
November 24, 1971
November 29, 1971
December 1, 1971
December 4, 1971
December 14, 1971
December 16, 1971
December 22, 1971
December 24, 1971
January 7, 1972
January 12, 1972
January 17, 1972
January 26, 1972 75
February 1, 1972 50
February 9, 1972 100
A TRUE BILL:
8 888888888888 8
3322323328388 828
/s/ John Valdemar Reistrug
Foreman
/s/ Harold H. Titus, Jr.
Attorney of the United States in
and for the District of Columbia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Holding a Criminal Term
Grand Jury Sworn in on April 3, 1972
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
THOMAS W. Moore, JR.
Criminal No. 1350-72
U. S. Mag. No. 22-531-72
Violation: 21 U.S.C. 841(a)
(Unlawful Distribution and Dispensation
of Controlled Substance)
The Grand Jury charges:
COUNTS 1 THROUGH 5
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule II,
— drug controlled substance to, Bobby J. King, as
ollows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
1 September 27, 1971 50
2 January 5, 1972 50
3 January 5, 1972 50
4 January 10, 1972 50
5 January 10, 1972 50
COUNTS 6 THROUGH 9
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
91
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule II
narcotic drug controlled substance to, Karen Bryan, also
known as Lynn A. Ryan, as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
6 February 2, 1972 50
7 February 4, 1972 50
~ February 8, 1972 100
9 February 9, 1972 150
COUNTS 10 THROUGH 14
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule II
narcotic drug controlled substance to, Ivan Gower, as
follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
10 September 3, 1971 100
11 January 28, 1972 50
12 January 31, 1972 100
13 February 4, 1972 100
14 February 7, 1972 100
COUNTS 15 THROUGH 18
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule II
narcotic drug controlled substance to Forris Ensor, as
follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
15 August 27, 1971 100
16 November 17, 1971 100
*
32
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
17 November 19, 1971 100
18 January 4, 1972 100
COUNTS 19 THROUGH 21
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolop une tablets, a Schedule II
narcotic drug controlled substance to, Herbert Bruce Hol-
land, as follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
19 August 30, 1971 100
20 February 8, 1972 100
21 February 9, 1972 100
COUNTS 22 THROUGH 26
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule II
narcotic drug controlled substance to Roger Wheeler, as
follows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
August 26, 1971
December 22, 1971
December 23, 1971
December 24, 1971
February 4, 1972
COUNTS 27 THROUGH 32
SRE
88888
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, IR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule II
na — 41 controlled substance to William N. Burgee,
as fo :
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
27 January 25, 1972 50
28 January 28, 1972 100
29 February 1, 1972 150
30 February 2, 1972 100
31 February 7, 1972 150
32 February 9, 1972 150
COUNTS 33 THROUGH 34
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule II
—— drug controlled substance to, Jerome Brooks, as
ollows:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
33 September 30, 1971 50
34 February 9, 1972 50
COUNTS 35 THROUGH 38
On or about the dates hereinafter specified for each
count, THOMAS W. MOORE, JR., the defendant herein,
within the District of Columbia, knowingly and unlaw-
fully distributed and dispensed the hereinafter specified
amounts of 10 milligram dolophine tablets, a Schedule II
narcotic drug controlled substance to, James B. Frazier,
as follows: .
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
35 August 27, 1971 50
36 February 1, 1972 50
COUNT DATE AMOUNT OF TABLETS
37 February 4, 1972 50
38 February 7, 1972 75
A TRUE BILL:
Foreman
Attorney of the United States in
and for the District of Columbia
85
(TRANSCRIPT OF SEPTEMBER 12
[5] THE COURT: Now, the other matter that we have
apart from discovery—and, I assume Dr. Moore and his
counsel have complete discovery—The problem that I have
is that I think that the defense is entitled to a more
explicit statement of the theory of your case.
[6] MR. ALTO: Ves, your honor. I would be glad to
do that.
THE COURT: Would it be best to do that by way of
a Bill of Particulars, or would it be est to do that by
some oral statement, or how do you want to do that?
MR. ALTO: I expressed to Mr. Brown my theory
of the case over the telephone yesterday.
THE COURT: Lou see, the Court kind of wants to be
in on it, too, since I have to try it.
MR. ALTO: Yes. I would like to tell your Honor
the theory of the case. I will start at the end first and
then trace it back to the beginning. I don’t want to
appear to be too basic with the Court.
The theory of the Government’s case is that the doctor
was conducting methadone maintenance when he wasn’t
authorized to, contrary to law.
THE COURT: Not authorized by statute.
MR. ALTO: Not authorized by statute and not au-
thorized by registration with the Federal Food and Drug
Administration.
THE COURT: That is a regulation requirement or
statutory requirement?
MR. ALTO: Well, I started at the end, and that is
the reason I would like to go a little bit back to the be-
ginning, because it is a little complicated in the sense
of the [7] statute.
Of course, we have the Controlled Substance Act stat-
ute dealing with these regulations. We have exceptions
within that statute as it applies to particular scientists.
One of the scientists is, of course, a medical doctor, who
can, if he is registered with the appropriate federal
agency, dispense the controlled drugs within the course of
his professional practice.
The statute also provides that the Attorney General
of the United States has the authority to promulgate rules
and regulations governing these registrations.
There are two types of registrations a doctor can get.
One is with the BNDD, which is a registration to give out
prescriptions solely for the purpose of detoxifying with
respect to methadone.
The second registration is called an IND registration,
which is one obtained by a doctor with the Federal Food
and Drug Administration. IND means investigation of
new drug. And, that is a registration that entitles a
doctor to conduct methadone maintenance.
In Dr. Moore’s case, the evidence would show—I prof-
fer this—that his IND registration was revoked prior
to the dates alleged in the indictment. He still retained
during the time of the dates in the indictment until the
present [8] date his registration with BNDD authorizing
him to give out prescriptions.
Now, with respect to the regulation that governs the
registration or scope of the registration that he had, I
refer your Honor to the Aitorney General’s rules and
regulations cited in the Federal Register, Volume 36,
Number 80, dated April 24, 1971, Part II. On Page 7799
the regulations go into the governing rules with respect to
prescriptions. And, the Government would rely on the
Section numbered 306.04. And, the two main sections
or the two main parts of that section that apply to this
case, that is, the specific theories of the Government’s
case, is section (a) which states in part: A preserip-
tion for a controlled substance to be effective must be
issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual
practitioner, acting in the usual course of his profes-
sional practice.”
It is the Government’s contention and theory that the
conduct by Dr. Moore in giving out these prescriptions
was not for a legitimate medical purpose, and secondly,
that he was not acting in the usual course of his profes-
sional practice.
The second aspect of that regulation is part (e), which
states in part: “A prescription may not be issued for the
dispensing of narcotic drugs to a drug addict for the
37
purposes of continuing his dependence upon such drugs.“
19] It is the Government’s contention that these pre-
scriptions were issued to maintain these drug addicts as
drug addicts, and that he was not issuing these prescrip-
tions to detoxify them, but retaining them as drug ad-
dicts.
So, that really all boils down to the end result of
what I stated, that he was conducting methadone main-
tenance or maintaining drug addicts rather than detoxi-
fying them as he was only authorized to do by his regu-
lations, and by his violation of these regulations he vio-
lated 841(a) of the CSA.
THE COURT: I will take that statement which you
made, Mr. Alto, in the nature of a Bill of Particulars, and
limit your proof accordingly, and it will be of notice to
Mr. Brown as to the theory of the case.
MR. ALTO: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Are there any other problems that we
need to deal with today? Have you had discovery, Mr.
Brown?
MR. BROWN: Yes, your Honor, except we would like
an opportunity to obtain copies of the records of Dr.
Moore that the Government intends to produce. At this
time we have no way of refreshing his recollection.
MR. ALTO: No problem.
THE COURT: You will have access to any exhibits
or anything of that kind that is going to be used. There
will be no problem.
[10] MR. ALTO: No problem with that at all, your
Honor. Mr. Brown can come to my office any time and
examine those records any time he wishes.
THE COURT: If they are Dr. Moore’s records, he is
entitled to make copies.
MR. ALTO: He can make copies.
THE COURT: Is there anything else?
MR. BROWN: Just one thing for the record, if your
Honor please. I would ask leave of the Court to file a
Motion to Dismiss the Indictment pursuant to such in-
terpretation that I give to the Bill of Particulars.
THE COURT: You are always free to do that. We
want to get that out of the way before trial if it is not
going to be acted upon favorably. So, you had better get
at that.
MR. BROWN: Fine.
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF BOBBY KING]
[59] Q Okay. Now, when you went to Dr. Moore’s the
first time, what happened, what occurred?
A You mean the procedure we went through?
Q Yes. When you first went there, did you apply
when you first went there?
A No.
Q Okay. Would you explain to the Court and the
jury what occurred then when you first went there?
A When I first went there, I went there with a friend,
and my friend, he was in the program, he was getting the
methadone, and we was sharing—he would pay half and
I would pay half—and he would obtain the methadone.
Q What would you do with the methadone, your share
of it?
A We would split it; and I would take mine and he
would take his.
Q Now, how much of that methadone were you tak-
ing during that time?
AI don’t exactly know the exact amount I was tak-
ing, but I was taking enough to get high.
Q To get high?
A Yes.
Q What do you mean? Will you explain to the Court
and jury what you mean by taking enough to get high?
A Well, my friend explained to me about how much I
was [60] supposed to take, and I proceeded from there.
Probably take a spoon, teaspoon, little teaspoon, and see
the effects of that, and take more if necessary for me to
get high.
Q Now, where would you share with your friend, this
methadone that he got from Dr. Moore?
A I am sorry, I didn’t understand.
, Where would you share it; where would you divide
it up?
A Occasionally on the street. Some time we would go
to the school, my house, I live around the corner.
Q Did there come a time when you, yourself, actually
applied to see Dr. Moore?
A Yes, there did.
Q Why was that?
A My friend, it was near the end of school, he left to
go back—school was out and he left to go back home to
Boston.
Q That caused you to apply at Dr. Moore’s yourself,
is that right?
A Yes.
Q What happened when you went in there to apply?
A You mean the procedure, right?
Q Yes.
A The nurse asked for some ID, stating my age, my
required age, and I be 21. I showed her the necessary
ID. She give me some forms to fill out and she put an X
where I [61] was supposed to sign my name. She said:
Make sure you read the statement.
I read the statement and signed my name, as necessary,
and filled out the proper data on each one.
Q What happened after you filled out these forms?
A She—I was given an urinalysis.
Q How was that? How were you given the urinaly-
sis?
A She gave me a cup and I went in the back to the
bathroom and I gave her an urinalysis.
Q Was anybody back in the bathroom to watch you
do that?
A I gave her urine for urinalysis.
Q Was a supervisor or anybody there watching you
give the urine?
No.
Was any other physical examination given you?
No.
Was your blood pressure taken?
OPO POP
40
A Yes, my weight was taken. Yes, my weight and
height.
Q Now, after that occurred, what happened then,
after that?
A I don’t recollect exactly, but she told—I think she
told me to—oh, yes, she gave me a form to fill out and to
go to B & W Laboratory on Georgia Avenue. I was
supposed to go [62] there; and I never did go. But she
told me to come back the next day.
Did you go back the next day?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did she question you about getting that done or
getting that form filled out?
A No.
Q Okay. What happened then the next day when you
went back there?
A I went back and got in proper line-up and I saw
the Doctor.
Q How long did you wait before your name was
called?
A Well, occasionally, I made it a habit of being at
least in the first ten or fifteen.
Q Okay.
A So, approximately, a half hour wait.
Q When your name was called, were any other names
called with your name?
A Some people that before me was called, yes.
Q And a grouping of how many would be called at
one time?
A Five, approximately five.
Q Where would you all go then?
A We would proceed in the back to the nurse’s sta-
tion I would suppose; and we would then wait individual-
ly to see [63] the Doctor. And she would call us off indi-
vidually to see the Doctor. We would go behind to see the
Doctor individually.
Q The first time you saw the Doctor, when you were
called into the office, will you describe what occurred?
A I went in to Dr. Moore’s office and, yes, he looked
at my arms. Well, he questioned me about heroin, and
everything. I don’t know the exact questions. I know he
41
questioned me; and then he looked at my arms; and
asked a few more questions; I suppose; and then he gave
me my prescription, my methadone.
Q Did he give you a liquid or prescription the first
time you went there?
A It was liquid.
Q How much did he give you, do you recall?
A I don’t know the exact milligrams, how much it
was. I know it was half a bottle.
Q A half a bottle?
A Yes.
Did he tell you how to use it?
A The direction was on the bottle. Yes, the direction
was on the bottle.
Q Okay. Did you take that out with you, take it
home with you?
A Yes.
I And when you left there, how much of that did you
take
[64] A I would take enough to get high.
Q To get high. How often were you going back to
Dr. Moore when he was giving liquid methadone?
A Approximately every two days, I suppose; some-
times every day depending upon what I took.
Q Okay.
A How much I took.
Q Were you also getting high when you took the meth-
adone you got?
A Yes, I was getting high.
Q Now, M.. King, there came a time when Dr. Moore
began to write prescriptions for Dolophin pills, is that
correct?
A Yes.
Q And did you go to him with reference to getting
prescriptions for methadone in pill form?
A Dolophin?
Q Dolophins, yes.
A Yes.
Q What would happen when you would go for the
Dolophin prescriptions?
A The procedure?
42
Yes.
3 He used—it was the same procedure as for metha-
done. The nurse would call approximately five individ-
uals, and we would go in the rear to the nurse’s station,
and you would see [65] the Doctor individually, each
person, as before, with the methadone.
What would happen when you would be called
into the office?
A Well, I would go into the office and the Doctor
would—he would say—the first time, the first few times
I went in the office, he prescribed 50 pills, 500 milli-
grams.
Q Fifty pills, right. What would he usually say to
you, if anything, when you first walked into the office;
or what did you say to him?
A Well, later on in the program, when I walked into
the office, he would say: What can I do for you?
And what would you say?
A Well, depending upon the amount of money I had,
I would either say, 100 pills or 50, depending upon the
amount of money I had.
What were the fees he charged?
A I think approximately $35 for 100 pills.
Q Did you say $35 for how many pills?
A One hundred pills.
How many for 50?
THE COURT: You mean $35 for a prescription to
take to the drugstore?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: For a hundred pills?
[66] THE WITNESS: For a hundred pills, right. $15
for a prescription for 50 tablets.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q Okay. Do you know how much he charged for a
prescription for 75 tablets?
No.
Q Did you ever get a prescription of 75 tablets?
A Not as I recollect.
Q $35 for a hundred and $15 for fifty?
A Yes.
>
* a, where would you take these prescriptions to
A There was three drugstores, Associate, Petworth,
and—Associate, Petworth—
A Les, they would.
Q And would they charge you money for filling the
prescription ?
A Yes.
Q What would it cost to fill a prescription, say, a
prescription for 1007
A 35.25, I think.
oils . What would they charge for a prescription for 50
[67] A $2.50, I think.
Q Now, what were you doing with these pills?
A I was taking the necessary amount for me to get
high; and I sold the rest.
Q Okay. How much were you selling them for?
A A buck and a half.
Q Okay.
THE COURT: A pill?
THE WITNESS: A buck and a half for each tablet.
THE COURT: Per tablet?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q You were selling them on the street, were you?
A Yes.
Q Now, when you first started getting prescriptions
from Dr. Moore, how many a day were you taking?
A When I first started, I was taking approximately
two to three per day.
Q Did it increase or decrease as you kept on going
back?
A My tolerance rose and, therefore, my individual
well, the amount of pills for me to get high increased.
Q How many pills were you taking at the end per
day?
A Approximately 30, 35 pills per day.
44
Q When did you first become addicted to methadone?
A I can’t remember the exact date, but it was some
time [68] in—are you saying liquid methadone or the
tablet, Dolophin?
Q Were you addieted to methadone before you went
to Dr. Moore?
A Let's see. Yes, I would say so.
1 Q You were addicted to methadone before you went to
im?
A My friend and I, when we was going together, I
got addicted during that time.
Q Okay. When you were getting the prescriptions
from Dr. Moore, approximately how often were you go-
ing there?
A That depended upon the amount I got the day
before or how many I sold; but, approximately, I would
go there approximately once a day or every other day
and sometimes—I can remember once or twice—twice a
Q You went there twice a day?
A Yes.
Q On some occasions?
A I think in one or two cases, twice.
Q How would you do that?
A Well, the Doctor, he had a program where you
could see him between the hours of 12:00 and 2:00 and
the hours between 5:00 and 8:00. I would go there be-
tween 12:00 and 2:00 and also between 5:00 and 8:00.
But I didn’t do this no more than once or twice.
Q And would you get a prescription each time?
1691 A Yes.
Q Did he ever question you about your having been
there earlier in the day?
A No.
Q Did he ever ask you how many of those pills you
were using?
A No.
Q Did he ever tell you how many to use to detoxify?
A Well, he didn’t say how many to use to detoxify,
but the directions was on the bottle after you received
it from the individual prescription shop.
45
Q Did Dr. Moore ever give you any directions, he,
himself, give you any directions on how to use these
pills, how many to take?
A Well, he told me not to try—not to try to use the
pills intravenously.
Q You mean inject them?
A Right.
Q Can you inject those pills?
A It can be done.
[CROUSS-EXAMINATION OF BOBBY KING]
[109] THE COURT: You had no regular appoint-
ments?
THE WITNESS: I had no regular amount. In other
words, I would get
THE COURT: My question is not amount. Did you
have regular appointments with the Doctor? Did he
expect you to come back at a particular time, instruct
you to come back at a particular time?
Do you follow what I am saying to you? I am not
talking about the amount. Say you were in Tuesday.
Did he set a time for you to come back again?
THE WITNESS: No, he didn’t really set a time. I
came back on my own.
THE COURT: So you came back when you had the
money?
THE WITNESS: Right, the money and—right, the
money.
THE COURT: The dosage, then, was based on what
you could buy?
[110] THE WITNESS: Correct.
46
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF KAREN BRYAN]
[134] Q Did you have occasion, Officer Bryan, to
visit the offices of Dr. Thomas Moore at 1520 9th Street,
Northwest?
A Yes, I did.
Q Directing your attention to February 2, 1972, did
you visit his offices then?
A Yes, I did.
Q What occurred when you went in the office?
A I went into the office and approached the secretary,
and I said: May I please see the Doctor?
[135] And she asked me for an ID; and I handed
Q Excuse me, Officer Bryan. Can you get a little
closer to the microphone so I can hear you all the way
back here.
THE COURT: She asked you for an ID, you say?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir; and I handed her an ID
made under the alias of Lynn Ryan.
Q Okay.
331 Did you fill out those forms?
es, sir.
What happened next?
I handed her the jacket and she put it in a pile of
other new applicants.
Q After that was done, what did you do?
A I waited in the waiting room until my name was
called.
Q How long was it before you name was called?
A Maybe an hour, an hour and a half.
1 — Wnat happened then after your name was
A I and about four, five others went into a hall-
type room adjacent from his office, and the nurse asked
to see my marks; and I showed her my arm; and she took
my blood pressure and my weight; and I had to give a
urine sample.
47
[136] Q Okay. Was anybody present when you gave
this urine sample?
A No, sir; I closed the door behind me.
Q Did you do anything to the urine?
A No, sir.
Q Now, were you a user of narcotic drugs in any
way?
A No, sir.
Q What happened after she took the blood pressure,
the weight, and you gave the urine? What happened
after that?
“a We were called one at a time into Dr. Moore’s
ce.
Q And after you went through this various testing,
did you go back in the waiting room or wait in line?
A No, sir; we stood in the same group; and then
we were called one-by-one into his immediate office.
How many were in the group waiting to see him?
There were about five or six of us, sir.
Where were you waiting with relation to his office?
We were waiting in the hall, which is right beside
—
OO YO ONO
Were you all standing or sitting?
We were standing at the time.
What were you in that line?
In the middle, sir.
Okay. Now, there came a time you were called into
the Doctor’s office?
1371 A Yes, sir.
Q Will you describe to the Court and the jury what
transpired when you went into the Doctor’s office?
A Yes, sir. I went in and he asked me what he
could do for me; and I said, I would like some Dolophins.
He said: Let me see your trackmarks. And I showed
him my arm. And he wrote me a script for 35 Dolophins—
50 Dolophins, excuse me.
Q Now, did you have anything on your arm?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q What did you have there?
A I had marks that were given to me by a doctor at
the police clinic.
48
What kind of marks were they?
Needle marks.
About how many were there?
Seven.
And were they on both arms or one?
Just one.
N Did the Doctor look at both your arms or just one
A Just one.
Did he ask to look at the other arm?
A No.
Q Was there any other conversation with Dr. Moore
at that time?
[138] A None that I can recall.
Q How long were you in the office?
A Not more than three minutes.
Q What did you do then? What happened next?
A I went out and I tried to give the nurse the money,
to pay for the script, because I didn’t pay Dr. Moore at
the time. And I said: How much is it for the visit?
She said, she looked at me, and kind of laughed. So
she said: Nothing. And I walked out. And I went end
had my prescription filled.
Q Where did you get it filled?
A Up the street at Associates.
Q Okay. And did you receive the filled-out preserip-
tion from the drug store, Associates?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that prescription eventually taken to the
United States Chemist at the Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs?
A Les, sir, it was, sir.
Q When was the next time you went back to Dr.
Moore, if you did?
A I went back on the 4th.
Q Two days later?
A Yes, sir.
rere
49
Q What happened when you went in the office there?
A I went into the office and I handed the woman
my I.D., [139] and she pulled my jacket; and then I
waited until my name was called.
Q About how long did you wait?
A About an hour, an hour and a half.
Q Approximately how many people were in the office
while you were there?
A I would say approximately 40 or 50 people, but it
is hard to say, because as people were going into his office
and leaving, there were more coming in. So it is really
hard to say.
Q Okay. So you waited until your name was called.
Was anybody else’s named called when your name was
called?
A Well, he took groups at a time and we waited in the
hall, the same as when I was there a couple days before.
About four, five of us.
Q Now, there came a time when you were called to
go into the Doctor’s office, is that correct?
A Ves, sir.
Q And what happened this time, on February 4?
A I went into his office and he said: What can I do
for you?
I said: I would like 50 more.
And he wrote me a script for 50 Dolophins; and I
gave him $15.
Q Any other conversation?
A No, none that I can recall.
140] THE COURT: You say you gave him $15. Did
he determine that or did you just hand him that?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, that was the price.
THE COURT: Who quoted the price to you?
THE WITNESS: It was common knowledge in the
waiting room; everybody talked price.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q Did he accept the $15.
A Yes, sir. I gave him a twenty and he gave me
five back.
50
Q Did you receive from Dr. Moore any directions as
to how to use these pills?
A No, sir.
Q Did you receive any other physical examination be-
side blood pressure, weight, and the giving of a urine
specimen?
A No, sir.
THE COURT: Did you receive that examination on
the second visit?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, that was on the first time.
THE COURT: Just on the first visit.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q Was there any subsequent examination after that?
A No, sir.
Q On the second visit, did Dr. Moore ask to look at
your arms?
[141] A No, sir.
Q Did Dr. Moore make any reference to the urine re-
sults?
A No, sir.
Q When is the next time you went back, if you did?
A I went back on the 8th.
Q Four days later?
A Ves, sir.
3 And what transpired when you went back on the
8th?
A Well, it was basically the same thing. I went in and
I handed the nurse my ID; and she pulled my jacket;
and when my name was called, and I went into his office,
I asked him for 100 pills this time.
Q Let me stop you. How long did you wait this time
before your name was called?
A It was a pretty long while, because there were
people in and out. He had lawyers in there asking for
affidavits; and he was on the phone a lot.
Q Okay. When your name was called, other names
were called also, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You waited in line, right?
51
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened when you were called into the
Doctor’s office on February 8?
A I asked Dr. Moore for a prescription for 100
Dolophins.
1421 Q And what did he do?
He gave me a script for a hundred pills.
Did he say anything else to you?
None that I can recall.
Was any payment made to him?
I paid $35 for that script.
Did you give that $35 to Dr. Moore?
Yes, sir.
And did he accept it?
Yes, sir.
When was the next time you went back?
The next day.
February 9?
Yes, sir.
What happened on February 9?
I went into the office and I handed the woman my
ID card; and she pulled the file; and it was only—it was
really kind of confused that day because there were
hardly any more Dolophins left in the City, and people
were really getting panicky, and they were trying to get
in to see the Doctor.
Q How many people were in that office that day?
A It was really hard to say because there were just
so many. I know that there is seating capacity for about
25 people in his office; and we were sitting on laps and
sitting on the floor and on the front steps, and it was—
it is really [143] difficult to say, sir, how many, maybe
about 80 people.
Q Did there come a time you got to see Dr. Moore
that day?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what occurred when you were called into the
office?
A He was on the phone at the time and he was ap-
parently on hold; and I asked him
He looked up and said: What can I do for you?
PO PO PO PO PO PO POP
And I said: 150.
And he gave me a script for 150; and I gave him $50.
Q $50?
A Yes, sir.
Did he receive and accept the money?
A
Yes, sir.
52
53
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF FORRIS ENSOR]
[170] Q Okay. Now, do you recall about when you
started going back to Dr. Moore to get Dolophin pre-
scriptions?
A The end of August. Like I said, I am not posi-
tive of the date.
Q Okay. Approximately how often were you going
to Dr. Moore to get the prescriptions?
A In the beginning?
Q When you went to get the prescriptions?
A Well, in the beginning, I was just going like once
a week. It began to be twice a week; and I think the
most it ever was was three times a week.
Q How many of those Dolophin pills were you taking
in the beginning when you first went to get the pre-
scription?
A How many pills?
Yes.
[171] A Between, I guess between five and ten in the
beginning.
Q Now, were you getting high in the beginning on
taking between five and ten?
A Not really, real high, but I was feeling nice, you
know, because I hadn’t taken anything for three weeks,
but I still was really sick, I still had the habit, but I just
again, I just like tried to get off, but I couldn’t. I guess
I could have if ! wouldn’t start it again.
Q How many of those pills did you need in the be-
ginning just to stabilize yourself, that is, to keep from
getting sick?
A I guess about five.
Q About five. Now, as you went to Dr. Moore, did
your in-take of pills increase or did it decrease?
A Did I increase my pills?
Q Yes. |
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q What did you increase them to?
54
A Well, like I said, I was taking between five and
ten; and then I started taking fifteen and then twenty
and then twenty-five and thirty. I got up to—I got as far
as, I think the most I ever ate was almost seventy.
Q You say, almost 70. You mean 70 pills at one time?
A Right.
Q Why did you do that?
{172} A Because after a while, I was eating so many,
that if I wanted to feel good or feel high, I would have
to eat that many.
Q What determined how often you went back to Dr.
Moore to get a prescription?
A Well, usually when I ran out, I would go back.
MR. BROWN: I am sorry, I didn’t hear the answer.
THE COURT: “Usually when I ran out, I would go
BY MR. ALTO:
Q What were the fees Dr. Moore charged you for
the prescriptions?
A $35.
THE COURT: For what?
BY MR. ALTO:
Q For how many pills?
A $35 for a hundred pills.
Q Did you ever get a prescription for 50?
A No, sir, I got one prescription for 75. That was
just one.
Q What were all your other prescriptions?
A A hundred.
Q A hundred. What was the fee for 75?
A I think it was $25. I only got it once. I am not
real positive. I think it was $25.
[174] Q Mr. Ensor, I am going to hand you a packet
of 26 prescriptions marked Government’s Exhibit No.
5.
Please keep them in chronological order and examine
them to determine if they were prescriptions given to you
by Dr. Moore.
—
55
A Yes, sir, they are mine.
Q Are they all prescriptions Dr. Moore gave you?
A Yes, sir, they are; they have my name on them.
Q What is the starting date, the first prescription,
[175] and the last date?
A The first one is 8/—
Q 27?
A I think, either 8/27 or 8/11.
THE COURT: Seventy-one?
THE WITNESS: Seventy-one. And the last one is
1/4/72.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q January 4, 72. Were they all for 100 except for
one, which is 75?
A Yes, sir.
MR. ALTO: If Your Honor please, the Government
moves the admission into evidence of Exhibit 5.
THE COURT: It may be received without objection.
(Whereupon, Government’s Exhibit No. 5, previ-
ously marked for identification, was received in evi-
dence. )
BY MR. ALTO:
Q I see from the prescriptions, Mr. Ensor, that you
got a prescription on October 28 for 100, and went back
the next day and got a prescription for 100, also, two
days in a row. Does that sound right?
A No, it doesn’t. I never went back two days in a
row. [176] I am sure of that. I have gone back, like
I went one day and skipped a day and went back, but
I am almost positive I never went two days in a row.
I think maybe the days are wrong.
Q You used to go back every other day sometimes?
A I have done that but I know I never went back, like,
today and then the next day, because I never did; I know
that.
Q You would go back sometimes every other day?
A Yes, sir.
56
Q Did you ever have any conversation with Dr.
Moore with respect to your being back there so soon?
A Well, a few times he said, you know, he said that—
you know, he said: Weren’t you just here?
And he said: Try not to come so often.
But that is about all.
Q Did you ever have any conversation with him with
reference to how many pills you were taking?
A In the beginning, he would tell me—he told me to
take five pills in the morning and five pills in the even-
ing.
Q Did he tell you that, personally?
A Yes, sir. And he also had it written on the pre-
scription blank.
Q Okay. Did you ever have any further conversation
with him after that, after the beginning, about how many
you were taking and why you were coming back so often?
A No, sir.
[177] Q Did you ever sell any of those pills?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ever get any directions from Dr. Moore on
detoxifying?
A When I first went there, the Doctor said that I
would have to detoxify myself in 21 days; but I never
heard any more about it after in the beginning; so I just
kept coming.
Q In other words, after the 21 days, you kept on
going back?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you kept on getting prescriptions for a hun-
dred, is that right?
A I couldn’t hear you.
Q And you kept on getting prescriptions for a hun-
dred?
A Yes, sir.
Did you have any other conversation with him about
detoxification?
A Not except in the beginning.
57
[REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF FORRIS ENSOR]
[194] Q Now, when you went to this doctor in Balti-
more to be detoxified in ten days, was that to be detoxi-
fied from methadone addiction or Dilaudid addiction?
A Methadone.
2. Where had you picked up that methadone addic-
tion
A From Washington.
Q From Dr. Moore, is that correct?
A Right.
Q The prescriptions show, Mr. Ensor—I want to
ask you a question—in August, you got 1,000 milligrams,
September, 4,000, October, 6,000, November, 7,000 mil-
ligrams, December, 7,750 milligrams.
Did you ever have any conversation with Dr. Moore
why you were getting an increase in milligrams each
month 1 why he was giving them to you?
A No, sir.
58
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF ROGER W. WHEELER]
[202] Q Did Dr. Moore ever question you about your
coming back, how many pills you were taking, or what
with them?
might have but I don’t recall.
i ever sell any of these pills?
friend of mine that I knew was using meth-
sick, or something, one day, I might, but not
n at all.
prescriptions show that all of your prescrip-
for two out of the 48 were for 50 Dolophin
two were for a hundred. Now, what deter-
—8
95
2
R
7
12
<
8
0
e-
rb
f
8.
:
E
Z
1
*
FEE
Be
5
8
8.
phin prescriptions, that is, the first one of August 3, 1971,
how many of those pills were you taking a day?
A It is such a long time ago, I don’t know. Usually
I would take 15, 25. It would all depend on my mood for
the day.
Q What do you mean, your mood? Were you getting
high from these pills or just keeping you from getting
sick in the beginning, when you were taking 15 to 25?
A I was using them to get high.
59
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF IVAN GOWER]
[226] BY MR. ALTO: *
Sir, would you please state your name.
Ivan Gower.
How do you spell your last name?
G-O-W-E-R.
How do you spell your first name?
I-V-A-N.
How old are you, Mr. Gower?
Twenty-one.
J Q In what city do you live?
A Baltimore, Maryland.
Q Did there come a time that you visited the offices
of Dr. Thomas Moore on Ninth Street in Washington,
D. C., Northwest?
Yes.
Do you remember when you first went to him?
December 69 or December 70.
Could it have been December of 1970?
Yes.
And what was your reason for going to him?
To get Dolophins.
Were you addicted to any narcotic drug at that
?
A No.
Q Why did you want to get methadone?
A Just to get high.
Q Will you get a little closer to the microphone so
we can hear you back here.
You say, just to get high?
A Yes.
Q Now, what occurred when you first went to his
office?
A I got weighed, blood pressure, filled out an appli-
cation.
Q Okay. Did you give a urine specimen?
A Yes.
Rpoporopreo
— Ü
Forer
60
{[227-A] Q Had you had any narcotic drugs in you at
the time you gave that urine specimen?
A I don’t think so.
Q What occurred when you first saw the Doctor?
A He asked me how I was doing, what could he do
for me.
Q What did you tell him?
A I told him I wanted to purchase some methadone.
Q And what occurred then?
A He asked—well, I am not sure exactly what the
exact words were, but was some talk about how much
money; and I think I give him $15 and he gave me a
bottle of liquid methadone.
Q So it wasn’t Dolophin when you first went there,
it was liquid, is that correct?
A Right.
Q Now, did you drink that bottle there or did you
take that out?
A No, he gave me a small cupful there, to drink
there, and a bottle to take home. It was a half a bottle.
Q Now, did you drink that methadone?
A Yes.
Q What was your reaction to it?
A Got loaded.
Q What do you mean, you got loaded, you got high?
A High, yes.
[228] Q How often did you go back to Dr. Moore to
get liquid methadone?
A At least once or twice a week.
Q And did you always use that methadone to get high?
A Yes. Well, eventually, I did get addicted to it.
Q How long was it before you got addicted to it?
A Maybe, I don’t know, a month or two.
Q Did there come a time, then, Mr. Gower, you got
* 2 Moore's Dolophin prescription program?
es.
Q Do you remember approximately when that was?
A Around August or September.
Q Incidentally, going back to the first time you went
to Dr. Moore, did he ask to look and see if you had any
track marks?
61
A No, he didn’t look at mine. He didn’t look at my
arms, no.
Q When you went back to get Dolophin prescriptions,
were you given any examination at that time?
A I can’t remember. I may have and may not. I
don’t know.
Q The first time you went there for Dolophin pills,
what occurred?
A Just asked me how many did I want; and I told
him; and I gave him the money; and I got the prescrip-
tion.
[229] Q How often would you go back to get those
pills?
A Couple times a week usually.
Q What determined how often you went back?
A How much I had.
What were the fees that Dr. Moore charged?
A U think it was $15 for 50 and $25 for 75 and $35
for a hundred; and [ think it was $55 for 150.
Q Now, why did you go back—you were on the
liquid program. Why did you go back and get the Dolo-
phin prescriptions?
A Well, he stopped dispensing liquid.
All right.
A I think he was down for a week or something, I am
not sure, and then he started giving out the prescriptions.
Q When you used to go in his office once or twice,
three times a week, how many people would be in the
office there?
A Usually couldn’t—just about get in the door.
Q Could you make an approximation?
A Maybe about a hundred, I don’t know, 75.
Q What would happen, generally, when you would
walk in?
A Gave your name to the nurse, receptionist, and she
take your folder out and lay it down.
Q What would you do then?
A I had a card at one time and she would put the
date on the card, on the appointment card.
[230] Q Then what would you do after she pulled your
folder?
Sit down and wait until my name was called.
How long did you usually wait?
It would be an hour and a half, two hours.
What would happen when your name was called?
Go in the hall and wait.
Were any other names called beside yours when
your name was called?
A Usually called maybe two or three at a time.
Where would you all go?
A Into a hallway; and he would take us in one-by-one.
Q And what, generally, would happen every time you
would go in there?
A The same thing. Just ask me what he could do
for me; and I would tell him.
Q Did he ever give you any directions on how to use
the Dolophin pills?
A Once in a while he would ask me how many I was
taking a day; and I would tell him. That was about it.
Q Did he ever give you any advice that you were
doing wrong or that you should do it this way?
A Not that I can remember.
Q Did you ever have any discussions with Dr. Moore
during the time you were getting these prescriptions
about detoxification?
[2311 A I think one time I got arrested and I wanted
I was afraid I was going to go to jail; and I asked
about getting detoxified; and I think he said something
like that he had too many patients and didn’t have the
time, you know, to work with just me alone, whatever
—something to that effect—about detoxifying me, I mean,
that is, increase my dosage. Because at that time, I was
pretty well addicted.
Q Did you ever go there two days in a row?
A I think so.
Q Did you ever have any argument with Dr. Moore
— the time that you were getting these prescrip-
tions
A Once or twice about money, if I was short money.
Q What were the arguments about?
A Might be a couple dollars short, and he would say,
you know, a lot of people were coming to him and telling
OO HO
— — — ſ— —
him that they were short money, and he just couldn't do
it any more; and I would go out and borrow the money
from other people and come back in and get my preserip-
tion.
Q Now when you first started getting Dolophin pre-
scriptions from Dr. Moore, how many a day were you
taking?
A This isn’t including the liquid, right?
This is after the liquid.
A Just the Dolophin?
Q Dolophin prescriptions.
* It is hard to say. Usually, anywhere from ten
to 60.
[232] Q How many of those pills did you need to main-
tain yourself, that is, to keep from getting sick, in the
beginning?
A I'd say around ten at the most.
Q And how many did you need to take to get high
in the beginning?
A This is the Dolophins, right?
Q Yes.
A About 20.
Q About 20. Now, were you always taking those
Dolophin pills to get high?
A At first. Well, I don’t know. After a while, no
I was taking them to keep from getting sick.
Q And how many were you taking when you stopped
going to Dr. Moore in February a day?
A Twenty-five, 30 a day maybe. I have taken as
high as 60 at one time.
Why did you take 60?
To get high, because tolerance increased, increased.
Your tolerance increased and increased?
(Witness nods assent.)
Did you ever sell any of those Dolophin pills?
A few. If I couldn’t get the money up to get a
prescription, yes.
Q What was the selling price? What would you sell
them for?
[233] A A dollar apiece.
PO PO PO
64
Did there come a time when the price rose?
Yes.
And when was that?
When they closed down.
When Dr. Moore closed down?
Yes.
What did the price rise to?
About $2 apiece.
Are you drug-free now, Mr. Gower?
Yes.
How did you get drug-free?
I got arrested in May, and I was in the city jail
for 20 days, and I kicked cold turkey, and I have been
drug-free ever since then.
PO PO PO PO PO PO
65
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF
WILLIAM N. BURGEE]
2511 BY MR. ALTO:
Q Looking at the first prescription, when did you
receive the first prescription? Does that refresh your
recollection?
A I have a hard time reading this handwriting, but
I think it says the 25th of January, 1972.
Q Okay. And was that for 50 Dolophin pills?
A Ves, I think so.
Okay. Now, looking at the second prescription,
does that refresh your recollection as to the second
time you went back?
A Yes, it is the 29th.
Q And how many Dolophin pills did you get on that
occasion?
A 100.
Q What conversation did you have with Dr. Moore
on that occasion?
A I went into his office and he asked me what he
could do for me; and I told him I wanted 100 Dolophins.
Q What did he do?
A He gave me a prescription for 100 Dolophins.
[252] Q Did you pay him a fee?
A Yes, I did.
Q How much was that?
A $35.
Q Now, looking at the third prescription, does that
refresh your recollection as to the third time you went
in there?
A Yes, it was the Ist of February, 1972.
Q How many Dolophin pills did you get on that oc-
casion, February 11
A 150.
Q Was there anything in the conversation with Dr.
Moore on that occasion that was different than the other
two conversations you had with him?
A To the best of my recollection, no.
Q Okay. When is the next time you went there?
A I can’t really read this handwriting too well. I
think it is February 3.
Q Did you ever go two days in a row?
A I don’t think I did. So far I haven't here.
Okay. The fourth prescription you got, how many
pills did you get on that occasion?
A 150.
What date is this, is that the 3rd?
This would be the fourth prescription, isn’t that
[253] correct, Mr. Burgee? How many did you get on
that occasion?
A 100.
Q Okay. And you paid a fee to Dr. Moore?
A Yes, I did.
Q What was the fee you paid?
A $35.
Q Was there any different conversation with him
than the other conversations you described?
Only the fee for 150, it was $50.
When was the fifth time you went there?
February 7.
How many did you get on that occasion?
150.
Did you have any conversation with Dr. Moore on
that occasion when you asked for 150 Dolophin pills?
A To the best of my recollection, no.
Q Will you describe what happened when you went
into the office and you requested 150?
A He wrote a prescription for 150.
Q Did he say: What can I do for you?
A Yes, or something similar.
Q Did he question you or have any conversation
with you with respect to your asking for the increased
amount to 150?
AI don’t believe so.
Q And what was the fee he charged for the 150
Dolophin [254] pills?
A Fifty Dollars.
Q Now, when was the last time you went to Dr.
Moore?
OPO POY
67
February 9, 1972.
And you said the time before that was February
3
o>
Yes.
How many did you get on February 9?
150.
And was the fee $50?
Yes, it was.
Was there any conversation with Dr. Moore that
different from the other conversations you had with
PO PO
8
m?
A To the best of my recollection, no.
Q Did Dr. Moore ever give you any directions on
how to use these?
A The prescription bottles had, as directed for de-
toxification.
But did Dr. Moore, himself, ever give you any
directions as to how to use these for detoxification?
A No.
68
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF JEROME BROOKS]
[261] BY MR. ALTO:
Q Had you ever been addicted to narcotic drug
prior to that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long before you went to Dr. Moore’s were you
addicted to a narcotic drug?
A About five years.
Q Now, how did you get unaddicted to a narcotic drug
before you went to Dr. Moore’s?
A I was in jail for nine months.
Q And how long had you been out of jail before you
went to Dr. Moore’s?
A About five months.
And you were not addicted at the time you went
there, to Dr. Moore’s?
A No, sir.
Q Why did you want to get methadone?
A To get high.
[264] BY MR. ALTO:
Q Mr. Brooks, what did the Doctor give you on that
first visit? Did he admit you into his program?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did he give you?
A One bottle of liquid methadone.
Q To go or to drink there?
A To go. I drank a small dose there and I had the
bottle with me.
Q What did you do with that methadone, use it to
get high?
A Uh-huh.
[265] Q How often did you go back to Dr. Moore on
the liquid?
A At first it was every two or three weeks, I think;
and then it builds up, so you start going once a week.
Q You say it builds up. What builds up?
69
A You get a habit and, you know, your tolerance
builds, you have to take more.
Q And did you develop the habit on methadone?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long was it before you developed a habit?
A It is hard to say, you know. You develop a
mental habit first, and then, you know, the next thing
you know, you wake up and you have the physical habit.
Q Did you have occasion after the liquid program
ended to go to Dr. Moore to get Dolophin prescriptions?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you have a habit at that time?
A Yes.
Q How often would you go to see him to get Dolophin
prescriptions?
A I tried to make it once a week.
Q And what would happen when you would go in
the office to get Dolophin prescriptions?
A He would ask how many I wanted, and 50, 75 or
a hundred; he told me the price; and I told him how
much I wanted; and I paid him.
[266] Q What were the prices?
A It was $15 for 50, $25 for 75, and $35 for a
hundred.
Q And what determined the amount you got?
A He asked me, you know, how many I wanted. If
I wanted 75, he would give me. If I wanted a hundred,
he would give me.
Q What determined how often you went back there
or how many you would get?
A What do you mean, what determined it?
Q What determined the frequency of your visits to
Dr. Moore?
A Me.
You?
A Uh-huh.
Q Did the Doctor ever schedule a set of appointments
for you?
A No.
Q Did he ever give you any directions on how to use
these pills?
70 | 71
A I think on the bottle it said, Detoxification. Q To an you needed money for what?
he, himself, ever give you 0 more.
oan ana ae taal Q To get more. What price did you sell them at?
A I can’t say for sure, you know. A A dollar apiece.
Q Did Dr. Moore ever tell you how to detoxify with 0 5 5 *
these pills?
[2671 A No.
Q Now, in the beginning, when you were first getting
the prescriptions, how many of the pills a day were you
taking?
A I guess five or so, started out taking.
And at the end, when you left Dr. Moore, when
he closed down, how many were you taking?
A The last time I took them, you mean?
Q Yes.
A About 30.
Q Now, in the beginning, how many did you need
to keep from getting sick, just to maintain yourself?
A Pills, you mean.
Q Yes.
A I guess 30, 40 milligrams, three or four pills.
Q Three or four pills? Were you taking those pills
to get high or to keep from getting sick?
A To keep from getting sick.
Q Now, did the habit build up? Did your tolerance
build up as you went?
A Sure.
And were you getting high any times that you
took those pills?
A At first, you know, you get high, like you get,
or something, and afterwards, it just builds up so fast.
One week you get high, and two weeks later, you know,
your tolerance [268] just builds so fast.
[270] Q Now, while you were getting these Dolophin
pills [271] from Dr. Moore, did you ever sell any on the
street?
A When I needed money.
Q — my question was, did you sell any?
es.
72
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF
HERBERT B. HOLLAND]
[285] Q Did there come a time when you stopped
the liquid program and you went and got Dolophin pre-
scriptions from him?
A Yes, it was.
Q How often would you go to him to get Dolophin
prescriptions?
A I'd say on an average two, three times a week
two times a week.
And what would happen when you would go in
and get the Dolophin prescriptions?
A I would go in there; the secretary would take
my name; and she would get my folder out and put it
in line, you know, on top of the other ones; and when it
was my turn, he would call me in the office and he would
ask me how many would [286] I need.
Q What would you say?
A Well, if I had enough money, if I had $40, 1
would say: Could I have a hundred Dolophins.
Q Would he give you a hundred?
A Yes.
Did he ever question why you wanted so many or
how many you were taking?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q How long would these visits last when you would
be in his office?
A Not long.
How long, would you say?
A About 30 seconds—about a minute.
[291] Q How many pills were you taking in the be
ginning when you were getting those prescriptions?
A Approximately ten, fifteen pills.
Q Were you getting high?
A No—well, a little bit, little bit. I wasn’t getting
high, as people say high. I was taking more than 1
should have to stay straight, but I wasn’t getting high.
73
Q You say you were taking how many, in the be
ginning, of the pills?
Approximately ten, maybe fifteen.
That is 100 to 150 milligrams, is that right?
A That is right.
Q How many were you taking in the end of Feb
ruary when you got the last prescription a day?
A Anywhere from 30 to 60, 60, 65 sometimes.
Q In other words, anywhere from—
A Three hundred milligrams to 650 milligrams.
Q Did you ever have any conversation with Dr.
Moore about the fact that you were down to 40 milli-
grams and that you were getting all of these prescrip-
tions, 33 of them in four months? Any conversation
with him about that, your detoxifying?
2921 A No, sir.
Q Now, the prescriptions show that in August, Au-
gust 30, you got one prescription for a hundred, that
is 1,000 milligrams; September, three prescriptions for
2,250 milligrams; October, four prescriptions for 2,250
milligrams; November, six prescriptions for 5,000 milli-
grams; December, nine prescriptions for 7,750 milli-
grams.
Did Dr. Moore tell you that this was how he was
going to detoxify you?
A No. I would just come in and get my prescription
and cash it and then go take my medication.
74
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF
KENNETH A. BROWN]
[359] BY MR. ALTO:
Q Officer Brown, will you state for the record your
full name.
Kenneth A. Brown.
And your occupation?
Police officer.
Where are you assigned, Officer Brown?
Sir, I am assigned to the Narcotic Branch, Metro-
politan Police Department.
Q How long have you been assigned to the Narcotics
Branch?
A Assigned to the Narcotic Branch May 18, 1969.
[360] Q For how long have you been a police officer?
A Five years in January, sir.
MR. ALTO: If Your Honor please, I am waiting for
the Marshal to bring out some exhibits I have to show the
witness.
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q Officer Brown, I hand you Government’s Exhibit 20-
A, and ask you to examine the contents, and ask you if
you had occasion to have that in your custody?
MR. BROWN: What was the question? I am sorry.
THE COURT: Whether he has had that exhibit in his
custody is the question, I believe, Mr. Brown.
MR. ALTO: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY MR. ALTO:
Government’s Exhibit 21-A, will you examine that
exhibit and I ask you if you have had occasion to have
that in your custody?
A Yes, sir, I have
Q Finally, Government’s Exhibit 19-A, have you had
occasion to have that exhibit in your custody?
A Yes, sir, I have.
O 0
75
Q Now, Officer Brown, did you have occasion to iden-
tify any prescriptions amongst those three exhibits issued
by Dr. Thomas Moore?
[361] A Ves, sir.
Q How did you identify the prescriptions as being
written by Dr. Moore?
A Sir, those were prescriptions which were identified
by the Doctor’s label, by the Doctor’s BNDD registra-
tion number and by the Doctor’s signature.
Q Did you have occasion to count all of the prescrip-
tions issued by Dr. Moore between September 1, 1971
and February 11, 1972 for Dolophin tablets?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what was the total count of the prescriptions
issued for methadone?
A Sir, the total number of prescriptions written by
Dr. Moore for Dolophin tablets during the period Sep-
tember 1, 1971 through February 11, 1972 was 11,169.
Q Did you further break that down and count the
prescriptions in accordance with the number of pills
that were prescribed?
A The number of pills, sir?
Q Yes, the number of Dolophin tablets that were pre-
scribed in each prescription?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many prescriptions during that period of time
were issued by Dr. Moore for 50 Dolophin tablets, of ten
milligrams?
A During that period of time, sir, 5,486 prescriptions.
And how many prescriptions were issued by Dr.
Moore [362] for the quantity of 75 ten-milligram Dolo
phin tablets?
A Sir, during that period, a total of prescriptions
for 75 was 1,126.
And how many prescriptions were issued by Dr.
Moore for the quantity of 100 ten-milligram Dolophin
tablets?
A Sir, for that period, for 100, a total of 100 Dolo-
phin tablets, the number is 4,225.
Q And how many were issued during that period of
time for 150 tablets?
76
Sir, 214.
And how many for 200?
A total of 9, sir.
And do you have any others?
Yes, sir. There were 109 miscellaneous.
What is the range of those, of the number of tablets
prescribed, within the 109 miscellaneous?
A Ranging from 15 to 300.
Q Okay. How many of the 300 were there?
A There were five, sir.
Q Did you further break it down, Officer Brown, into
total number of prescriptions issued by Dr. Moore per
month, beginning on September 1?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many total prescriptions were issued by Dr.
Moore in September?
[863] A The total was 807, sir.
And in October?
The total for October was 1,765.
And November?
Total for November was 2,370.
In December?
Total for December was 2,660.
January?
The total for January was 2,524.
And from February 1 through February 11?
From February 1 through February 11, the total
was 1,043.
Q Now, Officer Brown, did you further break down
by — 1 the dates that Dr. Moore issued over 100 preserip-
tions
A Ves, sir, we did.
Q On how many dates did he issue over 100 pre-
scriptions?
A A total of 54 days.
And is that in between that period, September 1
to February 117
A Sir, the time period is from September 20 through
February 9, 1972.
Q Are there any days he issued over 200?
A Yes, sir.
OPO OD
PO PO pO pO pO
77
Q How many?
A There were two days, sir.
[864] Q And what two days were they and what num-
ber?
A November 29, 1971, a total of 206 prescriptions;
and on January 5, 1972, there were a total of 271 pre-
scriptions.
78
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF
DR. DAVID H. FRAM]
[386] BY MR. ALTO:
Q Let me start with respect to the Psychiatric Insti-
tute, your Drug Rehabilitation Center. How do you treat
drug addicts there by the use of methadone?
A The part of the treatment that includes metha-
done, the methadone is used in two major ways: One is
for detoxification and the other is for maintenance.
Detoxification involves giving an addict a dose of metha-
done that is roughly equivalent to the amount of heroin
they were using, and giving successive diminishing doses
until they are not taking any methadone.
Methadone maintenance involves prescribing a set dose
of methadone daily, and continuing that.
Q Okay. Now, Doctor, say a person comes to the
Psychiatric Institute and states that: I have a heroin
problem; can you help me? What steps from the be-
ginning does your Institute take?
A Well, the first thing we would do would be to con-
duct an evaluation. This would involve myself or other
psychiatrists involved in the program doing a psychiatric
evaluation. It would involve all of the staff members con-
ducting their own evaluation of the individual as to, one,
whether he is an addict, and what the nature of the ad-
diction problem is, and what the [387] nature of the
underlying difficulties leading to the addiction are.
Also, a physical medical exam is conducted as well on
all the people that come, which includes laboratory tests
and chest X-ray. |
Q What kind of laboratory tests, to determine what?
A Well, mainly to determine if the individual is phys-
ically well. Large numbers of the addicts that we have
seen have had difficulties with their liver; and a number
have had venereal disease, and so on. We have conducted
the examinations to determine whether individuals have
these illnesses and get them treated if they need it.
79
Q Doctor, is a fairly thorough physical examination
that you have described important in the treatment of
drug addicts?
A I would say it is extremely important. Again,
large numbers of the addicts we have seen have been ill,
and they need medical treatment.
Q Now, the phychiatrie consultation, you said that is
initially done. How long is that consultation or observa-
tion period?
A From 45 minutes to an hour.
And then the physical examination, what occurs
after that?
A Well, we, in essence, get all our data together.
Each patient is discussed at a case conference of all the
staff, and [388] we try to put the whose case together,
figure out what kind of treatment is needed, and then
talk with the patient about what our recommendation is.
Q When you say, what kind of treatment, are you re-
ferring to whether it is going to be detoxification or main-
tenance?
A Among other things. Also about the psychothera-
peutic aspects of the treatment, as well, and why is the
person addicted and what happens to be involved in get-
ting over their problem. |
Q Upon what criteria do you determine that a person
that has come to you for help should be detoxified?
A Well, first of all, we want to, as much as we pos-
sibly can, determine that they are taking heroin or metha-
done. We have gotten a number of people who come to
us on methadone; and our attitude is that unless it be-
comes clear that a person cannot make it on maintenance,
we detoxify the person. So maybe a better way to put
the question is, how do we decide when to maintain
people.
[393] BY MR. ALTO:
Doctor, in the Institute, do you ever write pre-
scriptions for methadone for an addict to go to a drug
store and get methadone?
A No, I do not.
80
Q Now, even in your maintenance program, do you
ever write prescriptions for an addict to get methadone
in a drug store?
[394] A The only way methadone is ever dispensed in
the program is by the nurse, either to be consumed in
front of her, or when it has been determined that the
patient can take out a certain amount, the nurse gives
that amount to the patient.
Q Now, Doctor, I would like to give you a hypotheti-
cal set of facts for purposes of the questions I am to
ask you thereafter.
Would you please assume that the hypothetical facts
are true. Assume that a patient goes in to a doctor’s
office to be detoxified from heroin use; and that he fills out
various forms there; and that the physical examination
that is given is his blood pressure is taken, his weight is
reported, and he is asked to give an urinalysis.
He then waits; he goes in to see the doctor. The doc-
tor says: What can I do for you? The doctor might ask
him to see his track marks. And the patient says: I
would like 50 Dolophin pills. The doctor then writes out
a prescription for 50 ten-milligram Dolophin pills and he
is charged a fee of $15.
Assume further that the patient comes back three days
later, goes through the same procedure, goes into the
doctor’s office and the doctor says: What can I do for
you? He says: I would like 75 Dolophin pills. The doc-
2 writes out a prescription for 75 Dolophins, charges
25.
Assume the patient comes back two days later, gets a
prescription for a hundred Dolophin pills; and then
comes back [395] thereafter over a period of 22 weeks,
48 times, where he receives prescriptions ranging from
50 Dolophin pills to 100 Dolophin pills.
Now, Doctor, is that the accepted medical practice
within the District of Columbia in treating addicts?
A No, it is not.
Q I didn’t finish the question.
—with respect to detoxifying addicts, is that accepted
— practice?
0.
81
Q Is that accepted medical practice, even with re-
spect to maintaining addicts?
A Not for that, either.
THE COURT: Doctor, you have described your pro-
cedures.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you have any information as to
whether or not your procedures generally conform with
medical standards in medical practice in the District?
THE WITNESS: Yes, our procedures conform with
the standard as the Drug Abuse Committee of the Medi-
cal Society has recommended be used in treating pro-
grams of this sort.
THE COURT: When was that done; what date was
that done? When were those standards set?
THE WITNESS: Those standards were set some time
in 71, as I recall.
[396] BY MR. ALTO:
Q Doctor, are your practices in the Institute consist-
ent with the other drug treatment programs within the
District, for instance, the Narcotics Treatment Admin-
istration?
A Consistent with it, yes.
l believ= you testified, when I was going into your
qualifications, that you are familiar with programs
throughout the country that treat addicts by the use of
methadone.
A Yes.
ls your method consistent with these other methods
throughout the country?
A Yes, they are.
Q Is the hypothetical set of facts I have given you
consistent with any method that you know of throughout
the United States that is accepted by the medical pro-
fession in this country?
A Not that I know of.
Q Now, Doctor, assuming further—and I think I did
cite this to you in the hypothetical, but to repeat it—
that the doctor charges the patient $15 for a prescription
for 50 pills, $25 for a prescription for 75 pills, $35 for a
prescription for a hundred pills, and $50 for a prescrip-
tion for 150 pills. Is that acceptable medical practice in
this city?
A I would say not. Accepted medical practice is that
the physician treats the patient and charges for that.
If a [397] prescription is given, that is part of the
treatment. What the prescription is or how many pills
are given does not determine what the price is.
Q That is not acceptable medical practice to charge
by the amount that is given in the prescription?
A That is right, yes.
Q Now, Doctor, we have gone into detoxification and
how the methadone is given, and everything. What sup-
portive services do you have with respect to helping the
addict?
A Well, we have—maybe I should describe our pro-
gram. We offer psychotherapy and job counseling, pri-
marily. Our therapy involves the patient coming to three
group meetings a week, which are conducted by a psy-
chiatrist and ex-addict counselor, working as a team. The
ex-addict counselor is present in the clinic all of the time,
and meets with the patients informally, in informal
groups, and in individual sessions, as the patients are
coming in. Our nurse also is involved as a counselor,
as well. She knows all the patients and counsels them as
they are coming in. Our job counselor also is involved
initially with all the patients and is helpful to them in
both getting jobs and also in figuring out what kind of
jobs makes sense for them, what their difficulties have
been prior to that in getting jobs and holding jobs.
I would take issue with your referring to those as
supportive services. I see the methadone as supportive
and this [398] as being the heart of the program.
Q Oh, my terminology, I am sorry.
Doctor, in line with the hypothetical I gave you, do
= = the hypothetical set of facts I gave you?
es.
Q What are the medical dangers with respect to that
type of program?
A Well, first of all, one has no idea how much metha-
done the individual is taking. One doesn’t know whether
83
he is taking it, whether somebody else is taking it. You
don’t know whether a child is taking it. If you are try-
ing to detoxify a person, you don’t know whether the
person is being detoxified or whether they ve taking
more each day. Also, you have no idea if the individual
is indeed taking it at all. Maybe he is continuing on
heroin and selling the methadone.
Since you didn’t describe urine testing, which is twice
a week also part of our program—
Q Doctor, assume this set of facts: That a person
comes in and claims to be an addict, takes a urine test,
prior to the results of the urine test gets a prescription
for 50 Dolophin pills.
Assume further that the urine result comes back the
following day, negative on everything, and that the day
after that, the person comes back and gets a prescription
for another 50 Dolophin pills given by the doctor.
[893] Assume further that four days after that, the
patient comes back and gets another prescription from
the doctor for 100 Dolophin pills; and assume further
that the day after that, the very next day, the patient
comes back and gets a prescription for 150 Dolophin pills.
That is three prescriptions after the urine result comes
back negative.
Now, is the giving of the prescriptions after the urine
test came back negative acceptable medical practice in the
treating of drug addicts by the use of methadone?
A Well, if a person’s urine is negative, I would won-
der if they are an addict; and I wouldn’t think of giving
them methadone if they weren’t.
MR. BROWN: I would object to that. It is not re-
sponsive.
THE COURT: That is not a proper response. You
were asked whether or not that is an acceptable medical
practice?
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q It is not accepted medical practice?
A That is correct.
MR. ALTO: I have no further questions.
84
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF
DR. THOMAS E. PIEMME]
[444] BY MR. ALTO:
Q Is the method you described consistent with those
guidelines set out by the Medical Society?
A Yes, it is.
Q Is it consistent with the procedure followed by
NTA?
A Yes, sir.
Q What other groups in the District perform this
type of procedure?
A The Psychiatric Institute.
I am not familiar with the specific techniques that
are used by Black Man’s Development or Bon A Bond. I
think they are probably inclined to achieve the abstinent
state more rapidly. I don’t know the details.
Q From your experience with programs and your
studies of programs throughout the country, is the de
scription you gave of detoxification generally consistent
with these programs throughout the country?
A Yes, it is.
Q Now, the medication, itself, in detoxification, [445]
Doctor, how is it administered?
A Well, that differs from program to program. First
of all, almost all of the well-known programs, the major
ones in the country administer the methadone on site,
under direct observation of the staff. It is usually ad-
ministered in a liquid form and the liquid methadone is
put into Tang, or some other kind of vehicle. It is per-
fectly obvious. Although several of the programs are now
going to large capsules that are large enough that they
can be managed by an adult but not by a child.
Q Is the addict, in detoxification, given a number of
these capsules to take home, or how does that work?
A No. As we take somebody into our program, wheth-
er he is going to be detoxified or maintained on metha-
done, as most of our patients are for some period of
85
time, the methadone is administered in the clinic, daily,
under direct visualization of the staff.
After four to six weeks in the program, provided that
the urinalyses show no abuse of other drug, provided
that they have attended all of their therapy sessions, their
psychotherapy sessions, and those sessions meet twice
weekly, and provided that there is common agreement
by the staff that the patient is being entirely honest and
cooperating well with the program, then we will give
them weekend privileges, that is, allow them to take two
doses home for Saturday and Sunday. But for [446]
the remaining five days of the week, they still come to the
clinic and take their methadone under direct visualization.
Q Doctor, the third aspect of rehabilitating addicts,
maintenance, will you describe to the Court and the jury
what the accepted medical technique in methadone main-
tenance is?
A There are two approaches to methadone mainten-
ance. At about 40 milligrams of methadone daily, one
can stop the addict’s craving for heroin. He is still,
however, able to override the methadone, that is, if he
— heroin, he will still get the rush, and still get the
high.
There are some patients for whom it is appropriate
simply to curb the craving while one is proceeding with
rehabilitation counseling and therapy. For many patients,
however, curbing the craving isn’t enough. For whatever
reason, they still go out in the street and still use heroin.
One then uses a dose of 80 milligrams or more, which is a
so-called blocking dose, that is, 80 milligrams of metha-
done a day; and even if one goes out in the street and
shoots heroin, he will get no sensation from it, so there
is no point in using it.
This is why the large-scale programs, Dr. Dole’s in
New York, NTA here, Dr. Jaffe’s program in Chicago,
for the most part, achieve the blocking doses to prevent
the addict from going out in the street and using heroin;
there would be no point to it.
THE COURT: That is around the level of 80 milli-
grams [447] a day?
THE WITNESS: That is around the level of 80 milli-
grams of methadone a day.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q Now, the addict who is on maintenance in all the
programs you know of, how is the methadone admin-
istered on the maintenance aspect of treating the addict?
A Again, on every program it is administered on site
until the patient has earned so-called weekend privileges
by cooperating with the program, attending all the coun-
seling sessions, and the staff would agree that the patient
is reliable, trustworthy, to take the doses home. Every-
one is, of course, concerned with the take-home doses
about the issue of diversion, diverting the methadone to
the street, to the use of persons for whom it has not
been intended.
Q Doctor, is it acceptable medical practice in initially
— 2 addiets that they be given a physical examina-
on?
A Les, it is.
Q What physical examination should be given?
A Well, certainly, there is initially the necessity to
determine, if one can, the veracity of whether or not he
is an addict, that is, does he have needle marks, does
he have tracks, are his pupils constricted, does he exhibit
the signs that we associate with dependence upon heroin.
Moreover, people who are addicts are subject to other
diseases, hepatitis, bacterial [448] endocarditis. I think
every addict is entitled to a complete physical examina-
tion like any other patient who would come to a phy-
sician is entitled to a physical examination to determine
the state of his health.
Q Is that the commonly accepted medical practice in
the programs you know of, to give an examination that
covers these areas, to determine if he has these diseases?
A It is indeed.
Q Doctor, for the purposes of asking you a question
that is to follow, I want to ask you a hypothetieal ques-
tion, and I ask you to assume that the facts I am about
to give you are true.
87
Assume that a patient comes into a doctor’s office,
and he claims that he is an addict ;he fills out various
forms. A nurse them administers to him, takes his blood
pressure, weighs him, and sends him to the bathroom to
give a urine specimen.
Assume then that he goes in to see the doctor; the
doctor asks him what he can do for him. The doctor
might ask him to see his track marks. The patient then
requests Dolophin tablets, ten milligrams. The doctor
writes out a prescription for 50 ten-milligram Dolophin
tablets. The patient then leaves; fills out the prescription.
Assume further that the patient comes back eight days
later, goes in to see the doctor. The doctor says: What
can [449] I do you you? And the patient says: I would
like some more. And the doctor writes out a prescription
for 50 ten-milligram Dolophin tablets.
Assume further that the same procedure persists eight
days later, 50 Dolophin tablets; three days after that, 50
Dolophin tablets; ten days after that, 50 Dolophin tablets;
three days after that, 50 Dolophin tablets; two days after
that, a hundred Dolophin tablets; six days after that, 50
Dolophin tablets; two days after that, 50 Dolophin tab-
lets; four days after that, 50 Dolophin tablets; five days
after that, 50; five days after that, 50; two days after
that, 50; five days after that, 50; three days after that,
50; two days later, 50; three days later, 100; three days
after that, 50; two days after that, 100; three days after
that, 100; two days after that, 100; one day, the following
day, 100; three weeks later, 50; three weeks later, assume
the date is January 5, he comes in during the doctor’s
office hours between 12:00 and 2:00, and the same pro-
cedure happens, and the doctor gives him a prescription
for 50 Dolophin tablets; and four hours later, he comes
back during the doctor’s evening hours, he requests an-
other prescription, and the doctor writes him a prescrip-
tion for another 50 ten-milligram Dolophin tablets; and
then five days later, returns, follows the same pro-
cedure, goes in the afternoon, gets a prescription for 50;
goes in the evening and gets a prescription for 50; and
two days after that, he comes back and gets 100 Dolo-
phin tablets; [450] five days after that, he gets 100; two
88
days after that, 100; two days after that, 100; four days
after that, 50; the following day, 100; two days after
that, 50; three days after that, 50; three days after that,
100; and four days after that, 100.
Did you generally follow that, Doctor.
A I followed it.
Assume further that the breakdown is that in Sep-
tember, ’72, he received 500 milligrams; in October he re-
ceived 3,500 milligrams; November, 3,500 milligrams; De-
cember, 6,500 milligrams; January, 8,000 milligrams.
Now, assuming those facts to be true, is that accept-
able medical practice in this city in detoxifying a nar-
cotic addict through the use of methadone?
A No, that is not acceptable medical practice.
Q Is that acceptable medical practice?
A That is not acceptable medical practice in any
program that I know of anywhere in the country.
Q Is that acceptable medical practice, Doctor, even
with respect to maintaining an addict?
A No, it is not acceptable medical practice for metha-
done maintenance.
Q Assuming those facts to be true, what are the medi-
cal dangers contained within those facts?
A Well, one could postulate risk to the patient from
[451] an overdose of methadone; but I think we would all
strongly suspect that the patient is not using the metha-
done. There is then risk to those people to whom he may
be giving or selling the methadone, risk to people who
might inadvertently come across his supply of methadone.
There have been instances of small children, one in this
city, two years of age, who died from consuming metha-
done that was left around the house.
I think those are the risks: Overdose death, not only
to patients but to others who may inadvertently use it or
to whom it may be sold.
Q What would be a lethal dose of methadone taken
by a person who is not addicted, people like you or I or
members of the jury?
A I think about 60 milligrams would be a lethal dose
for anyone who is not narcotic-dependent; and for a
child, 20 milligrams, depending on the size of the child,
could be a lethal dose.
Q Now, Doctor, I am going to ask you to assume an-
other set of hypothetical facts.
Assume the facts I gave you previously were true. As-
sume further that the doctor charged a fee of $15 when
he wrote a prescription for 50 ten-milligram Dolophin
tablets; charged a fee of $25 for 75 ten-milligram Dolo-
phin pills; charged a fee of $35 for 100; and charged a
fee of $50 for 150.
Is that acceptable medical practice?
[452] A That is not only not acceptable medical prac-
tice; that is unethical medical practice.
MR. ALTO: No further questions.
[CROSS EXAMINATION OF
DR. THOMAS E. PIEMME]
[459] Q Now, you had indicated further that the
blockage level for stultifying, shall we say, an addict’s
— for heroin is around approximately 80 milligrams
a day
A Eighty to 120 milligrams a day.
Q Eighty to 120 milligrams a day. Now—
A Iam sorry. You say, block the craving. One can
460] abort the craving at 40 milligrams a day. At 80
to 120 milligrams a day, one then blocks the effect of
heroin that may be used to override the methadone.
I see. Then am I to understand that in order to
go beyond blocking the craving, in an effort to block the
effect of heroin, it necessarily entails an increase in the
doses of methadone to be given to a patient until you
reach that level?
A lam not sure I understand.
Q Well, you said that the craving for heroin can be
blocked with approximately 40 milligrams.
A That is correct.
Is that right. Now, in order, however, to completely
prohibit the euphoria that a patient would obtain—
A That is true.
rom using heroin, you would have to raise his
dosage, would you not, sir?
A That is correct.
Now, in that same regard, I again state that your
answer to what that amount was, that is ordinarily ne-
cessary to prevent the euphoria, is approximately 80
milligrams?
A That is correct.
Q Is it not true, however, Doctor, that where you have
a patient who has a high heroin habit, $100 a day, or
$300 a day, that he would require possibly a greater
amount of milligrams than 80 in order to prevent the
euphoria he would [461] obtain from using heroin?
A I am doubtful that he would require more than—
no, I am doubtful that he would require more than 100
at the maximum. Even the largest habit one could con-
ceive, it is doubtful he would require more than 100.
Q You feel 80 milligrams a day, regardless of the
habit which the addict has, would be sufficient to block
the euphoria, is that your testimony?
A is correct.
Q Now, what about the patient who comes to a
doctor, who has already acquired a methadone habit by
virtue of previously being in a program, does he not have
a high degree of tolerance?
A There are some who do, yes.
Q And do they not require a higher dosage of mil-
ligrams in order to obtain the desired effect?
A No, those people—and there are some on record—
who have been on very, very large doses of methadone
daily, on the order of 150, 200 milligrams of methadone
daily, can very quickly, within a matter of a day or
two, be brought down to 80 to 100 milligrams of metha-
done a day and maintained there.
91
[DIRECT EXAMINATION OF
AGENT WILLIAM J. MILLER]
[491] BY MR. JOHNSON:
Q Tell me this, sir. What other artifice, if any, did
[492] you employ?
A The evening before and then that morning before
we came down to Washington, I had taken a pin and
placed some pin marks, surface-type pin marks on my
right arm, from approximately my wrist up to my elbow.
Q What was the purpose of putting those marks on
your arm?
A The same purpose as the clothing, to look like an
addict.
Q Beg your pardon, sir?
A The same purpose as the clothing, to look like an
addict.
Q Was that to imitate what they call track marks,
which you are familiar with as track marks?
A As best that I could. It wouldn't actually be track
marks.
Q Now, when you got there, did you give your right
name?
Yes, sir, correct name.
Did you have an ID?
Yes, sir.
Did you give your correct ID?
Yes, sir.
And what ID did you have?
A Maryland Motor vehicle Driver’s license.
I see, sir. And you didn’t give your police [493]
identification?
A No, sir.
Did you inform the nurse that you were—what
if anything did you tell the nurse?
MR. ALTO: I think we ought to have the foundation
and dates, if Your Honor please.
OPO PO POY
ll
92
BY MR. JOHNSON:
Q Will you tell us what date it was you went there?
3 The first date I went there was on January 13,
Q Now, on that date, did you give a sample of your
urine?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what did you tell the nurse on that day about
heroin, if anything?
A Nothing.
Q You didn’t tell her you had a heroin habit?
A She gave me some forms to fill out.
Q I see. Did you put down that you were a heroin
addict?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long did you say you had been a heroin addict?
A I can’t really recall, honestly. Probably two years,
as best I can recall.
Q How much of a heroin habit did you say you had?
A There, again, I can’t really recall. I would be
— I would say ten-bag a day, or something like
[494] Q Now, you didn’t make up this format with-
out — help, did you, or did you make it up on your
own
A I made it up on my own because I didn’t know
there was a format, that that was the format until I got
in there.
Q Is it your testimony, sir, you didn’t need any help
to know how to masquerade as an addict?
A Well, my own practical knowledge that I derived
from the job.
Q And you tried in every way you knew how to mas-
querade as an addict?
MR. ALTO: Objection. Calls for a conclusion, lead-
ing the witness.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. JOHNSON:
Q Was there anything else that you could have done,
from your expertise, your knowledge as a narcotic offi-
93
cer, was there anything else you could have done to make
more complete your masquerade as an addict?
Yes, sir.
What else could you have done?
I could have put methadone in my urine.
You could have done that? You didn’t do that, sir?
No, sir.
Did he take a sample of your urine?
Yes, sir.
[495] Q And did he give you a prescription?
A Ves, sir.
Q Now, did there come a time when you returned to
him?
>O>O PO >
Yes, sir.
Did he take your urine that time?
Yes, sir.
Was that the second time?
Yes, sir.
Now, what date was it, the second time?
That was January the 18th, 1972.
Sir?
January the 18th 1972.
Now, did you come with the same dress or did
you use any different dress?
A Basically, the same. I had another jacket; I had
an army jacket which 1 wore.
Q I see. Did you do anything else other than what
you did when you first went there?
A I didn’t do as much as I did the first time.
Q I beg your pardon?
A The marks that I had were no longer present. I
did not put them on again.
OH O OOO
[CROSS EXAMINATION OF
AGENT WILLIAM J. MILLER]
[502] Q Okay. Now, the second time you went back,
I believe you testified, was January 18?
94
A Yes, sir.
What happened when you went into his office then?
A On the 18th, I went up to the nurse and presented
my driver’s license, which I used the first time for iden-
tification. She got my file out of the file cabinet, placed
it in a pile with the other ones.
I began waiting around. I waited for approximately
I believe it was two hours, quite some time, until I fi-
nally got in line and lined up with the approximately
five people that were waiting to go into the doctor’s office.
I went into the doctor’s office and sat down. He again
said: What can I do for you?
I said: You had given me 50 last time, and that wasn’t
enough; I had to go out on the street.
[503] The Doctor said: I can give you 50, 75 or 100.
Just tell me how many so we can move along here.
I said: Well, give me a hundred.
And then he said: How about you settling with me
while I settle with you.
I asked him: How much?
And he said: $35.
And I paid him the $35.
Q And you got a script for a hundred?
A Yes, sir.
MR. ALTO: Your Honor, may I have this marked
as Government’s Exhibit—
THE DEPUTY CLERK: No. 23. Government’s Ex-
hibit No. 23 marked for identification.
(Whereupon, Dr. Moore’s file on Mr. Miller, was
marked Government’s Exhibit No. 23, for identifica-
tion.)
BY MR. ALTO:
Q I hand you what has been marked as Government’s
Exhibit No. 23, and ask you if you recognize your hand-
writing signatures on any of these items contained in that
jacket?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, do you see your name on top of any of those
results of urine tests?
A Yes, sir, I do.
[504] Q Okay. What is the return date on the first
urine test you took there?
A The return date is January 15, 1972.
Q What was the result?
A The result is negative for any narcotics.
Q You got a script on the 13th. Your urine came
back negative on the 15th. He gave you a script for a
hundred on the 18th, isn’t that true?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he say anything about the negative urine?
A No, sir, he didn’t.
Q Now, these marks you put on your arm, you have
dealt with addicts since you have been with the Bureau;
you have seen track marks; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were they track marks or what do track marks
really look like?
A Track marks are scar tissue, the veins appear
black, darker than normal. I have seen addicts with
abscesses, and particularly scar marks like where the
skin hasn’t grown back properly.
The marks that I put on my arm were just surface
pin marks, which were no more than or less than 24
hours old, every one of them.
Now, you gave another urine specimen that day,
the [505] second time?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Okay. When is the next time you went back, the
24th of January?
A Yes, sir.
Q , What happened when you went into his office that
time
A On the 24th, again, it was quite crowded. First of
all, I had to wait in line outside. When I finally got into
the building, I showed the nurse my driver’s license again;
she again took the folder out and placed in on top of the
cabinet. After some time I finally got in line and my
— was called; and I went in the Doctor's office and sat
own.
96
Dr. Moore said: What can I do for you?
And I said: You gave me a hundred last time. Can
you give me a hundred more?
And, basically, that was the conversation. He wrote
the prescription for a hundred; I paid him the $35 for it.
97
[CROSS EXAMINATION OF
THOMAS W. MOORE, JR.]
[682] Q Let me ask you this, Doctor: Is methadone
an addictive narcotic drug?
Yes, it is.
Is it also a dangerous drug?
Yes, it is.
Is it also an abusable drug?
If not used properly, it is dangerous.
Is it also an abusable drug?
Yes, it can be abused.
And the form in which you were prescribing the
Dolophin [683] tablets in the form in which addicts can
cold cook it and inject it, is that right?
A If an addict is so—
Q Inclined?
A —inclined.
MR. BROWN: I will object. I think this wftness
ought to be able to answer his own question.
THE COURT: Don’t interrupt the answer.
MR. ALTO: I am sorry, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: If an addict is so inclined to do
so, he can. By this process of cold cooking, I think you
mean—What do you mean by cold cooking?
BY MR. ALTO:
Q@ What I mean, Doctor, if you could kindly give
me an answer to my question, is the Dolophin pill the
kind that the addict can inject?
A Yes, that is the only type that private physicians
can prescribe.
Q Would you answer my question?
THE COURT: That is not the question, Doctor.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q Is a Dolophin tablet what an addict can inject?
A An addict can inject a Dolophin tablet, yes.
And did you promise that Grand Jury on October
22, 1974, you would not write prescriptions for metha-
done that could [684] be injected?
OPO PO POP
98
Did you promise them that?
A I don’t know if I promised them. I told them 1
wouldn’t. I don’t know if I used the word, promise, or
not. I might have.
MR. ALTO: Page 14, Mr. Brown.
“Question: And you will not issue methadone
prescriptions to addicts or anyone else which can
be injected?
“Answer: No.“
Do you recall that question and your giving that an-
swer?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: And that is what he has just said
now on the stand.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q Was that a promise, Doctor?
A That was a statement. It was a question and I
answered it. If you see the word, promise, in there, I
wish you would read it.
Q Was that a firm statement to the Grand Jury?
A That was a firm statement.
6881 Q Now, did you also tell that Grand Jury, Dr.
Moore, did you promise them that you would abide by the
urine results in screening an addict?
A Yes, I did. I don’t know what my exact state-
ment was [689] but I do remember agreeing to Tollow a
urine testing schedule.
Q Would this be your exact statement, Doctor?
MR. BROWN: Objection.
1 THE COURT: He is refreshing his recollection, Mr.
rown.
MR. BROWN: He needs to ask him, would it re
fresh his recollection.
THE COURT: ‘Well, he is about to do it.
a BY MR. ALTO:
Q “Question: And are you going to set up
some screening measures and what would they be?
99
“Answer: Well, the main one would be urine, the
screening of a patient’s urine, taking a urine sam-
ple, sending it off to an appropriate laboratory and
abiding by that particular result.”
Is that what you said to the Grand Jury in October
707
A If it is written there that way, then I said it.
Q Would you like to look at it, Doctor?
A No, I don’t need to look at it. I will take your
word for it.
Q Did you promise you would abide by the urine
result?
A Is the word, promise, in there?
Q Did you 2 a firm statement to the Grand
?
ury
A I made a firm statement.
Q I want to hand you Government’s Exhibit No. 4,
1690] Lynn Ryan, urine results negative all the way
through; yet she got script.
Did you abide by the urine results with that patient?
A No, no, I did not.
Q How many script did you give her after the urine
result came back negative?
A I gave her her initial prescription, and then I
gave here three other ones.
Q Three more in increasing dosages, the last one be-
ing 1507
A 150. 0 e eo @
[706] Q Did you also make a firm statement to that
Grand Jury that: This is going to involve more than
one urinalysis; that this will be the control. As the
person is taking the medicine, [707] you would have
to make sure he was staying drug-free. Did you tell
the Grand Jury that?
I might have, Mr. Alto, but that was quite some
88
me have you look at it, Doctor, to refresh
recollection, the last question on Page 21, and the
last answer.
A L see the question here to read: —
100
“This may entail more than one urinalysis.”
I want to stress that word, may.
“This may entail more than one urinalysis. It
may entail several urinalyses.
“Answer: Yes. This would be the control, as
the person is taking his medicine, to make sure
he is staying drug free.”
That was your answer, is that right?
A Yes, I have to abide by what was written there.
Doctor, you put a witness on the witness stand, a
Mr. Steptol.
MR. BROWN: Objection. This Defendant put no
witness on the stand; his counsel did.
THE COURT: You stand corrected, Mr. Alto.
MR. ALTO: Sorry.
BY MR. ALTO:
Your counsel put on the witness stand a person
who testified for the defense by the name of Steptol,
isn’t that [708] correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you making sure that that man stayed
drug-free, as you told the Grand Jury?
A I understand from Mr. Steptol that Mr. Steptol
now is drug-free.
During the time you were treating him and after
you told the Grand Jury that you were going to make
sure the urines were drug-free, were you abiding by that
statement to the Grand Jury with Mr. Steptol?
A It arrived a point after my testimony with the
Grand Jury that I decided that the guidelines for my
particular program did not require a urinalysis, that
in all instances was not true, you know, was not a true
result. So I felt it absolutely senseless to continue, you
know, a faulty procedure. They could use a test tube that
was dirty, and all of a sudden, I have a patient with a
positive urine result. Now, who wants to put that kind
of burden on a patient.
Q Did you try to go back to the Grand Jury and tell
them that you weren’t going to make sure they are drug-
free in their urine?
101
A I did not even know I had the right to go back
to the Grand Jury.
[711] Q Now, Dr. Moore, when your IND number
was taken away, you omy had authority and you knew
you only had authority to detoxify people, is that right,
addicts?
A (Witness nods assent. )
Q Can you describe to this jury what short-term
detoxification is?
MR. BROWN: He has been asked the question. Was
there an answer as to the first question?
MR. ALTO: You nodded.
BY MR. ALTO:
What was your answer to the first question?
A I will do it again if you want me to. I did it
this morning but—
THE COURT: No, the problem is, Doctor, you re-
sponded by a head shake, and I guess the record doesn’t
show whether it was affirmative or negative.
You were answering affirmatively, were you?
THE WITNESS: I am sorry.
THE COURT: I am not criticizing you. The first
question is: You knew you could only detoxify after
your number was taken away?
[712] THE WITNESS: Les.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q Okay. Can you describe to the jury—
A There was some difference of opinion. That was
my understanding. Now, on consulting with legal coun-
sel and their reading—
Q Which legal counsel now, Mr. Moore?
A Eventually, I discussed this problem with Mr.
Brown, a long time before I hired Mr. Brown. He had
been referred to me by the Dean of Howard’s Law
School as a good attorney; and I was in between attor-
neys; I didn’t feel I was getting the proper legal advice.
I felt that I was being grossly overcharged.
102
let me stop you there. Mr. Jacob Stein
represented you at the Grand Jury, didn’t he?
ury.
Q Wasn’t he the President of the Bar Association?
A Now, I wish to qualify that last statement.
THE COURT: Let's not get into a discussion of the
qualifications of different members of the Bar.
When did you have any reason to believe that you
had authority to do more than detoxify, what date?
THE WITNESS: I don’t know exactly which date,
Your Honor.
[713] THE COURT: See if you can estimate it for
me, then.
THE WITNESS: I can’t estimate at all.
THE COURT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: But for months, I was under the
opinion that all I could do was just detoxify people.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q For months. Doctor, let me hand you a prescrip-
tion dated February 8, 1972, three days before you
closed down.
:
7
1
:
i
Did you rubber stamp. that?
Yes, sir.
Did you rubber stamp that?
Yes, sir.
What does the rubber stamp say?
“Take as directed for detoxification.” That is for
a hundred tablets.
Q Doctor, isn’t it a fact around November 1 all of
these prescriptions have that rubber stamp, “As directed
—＋ 77 * or do you want to look at all of
A No. This was done with a purpose.
Q Well, you understood what your authority was?
A Yes.
PO PO PO
103
[715] Q Doctor, what did you say to these people that
came in beside, What can I do for you; that will be
$15, $25, 8357 [716] What else did you say to them?
A We said quite a few things. It would depend on
the patient, what other he had. We would sit
office where it would
my right ear, that used to scramble my voice, so any-
one standing outside couldn’t hear a private conversa-
tion; and the patient would talk; and I would listen;
and whatever he wanted to talk about, he talked about.
Let me ask you this:
A Now, this, to me, was the counseling of my
patients.
Q What were your office hours, Doctor?
A Well, they varied. I asked the nurses to be there
11:30 in the morning.
THE COURT: He is talking about office hours, Doc-
tor.
THE WITNESS: Twelve to two, and five to eight;
but I was never able to keep those hours.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q Doctor, let me ask you this: There has been an
item admitted into evidence, Exhibit No. 22, which shows
on January 5, 1972, you wrote out 271 prescriptions.
Where did you get the time to consult and talk with
patients, if you were writing out 271 prescriptions—
saw 271 patients?
[717] A One would have to assume from that, right
there, that I talked very fast or I write very fast, and
possibly both.
Q Doctor, there has been testimony in these records
admitted into evidence to support that between Septem-
ber and February there were 54 days when you issued
over 100 prescriptions, that means over a hundred
patients, in your office hours. How did you counsel
them? How did you motivate them? Will you tell the
jury that? 8
104
A Because it was impossible for me at any time in
the last three years to hold office hours between twelve
and two and five and eight. That is, from twelve until
whenever we finished; and sometimes we didn’t finish.
Sometimes we went straight through, all the way, and
the neighbors used to comment. They would say: Jesus,
Doctor, you overlapped yourself that time, didn’t you?
[722] Q Did you consider the aspect of those people
who got their freebees selling them on the street?
A These were only given to certain patients for cer-
tain reasons, that is, no charge was made. To persons
—like I said, I had to treat, and I still do treat every
patient who comes in as a particular patient. I don’t
have a blanket set of rules [723] for my office, outside
of keeping quiet and no fights and no drinking, and that
sort of thing.
Q What was the rule you expressed to the jury as to
why you charged $15 for a script of 50, $25 for 75,
$35 for a hundred; and there has been testimony—did
you charge $50 for 1507
A Fifty dollars for 150, yes.
Q How much did you charge for 200 pills?
A When I rarely gave 200 pills, I would charge—
this would depend. If it was a family, say, a husband
and wife—if it was just a single person, that would
come to $70. Now, if both the husband and the wife
were both addicted, we could see that this is—we are
talking about $140 from just that one family, and we
are talking about a fellow who might have a job, they
are only paying him, maybe, between 75 and maybe 85
or 100 dollars a week.
Q Do you know of any other doctor who charges
graduated fees, depending on the amount he writes on
the prescription?
A I don’t know two doctors in town that do the
same procedure in anything.
Q Do you know anyone, Doctor, who charges based on
the amount he writes in the prescription, graduates it?
A Yes.
105
Q You do, Doctor?
A Me.
1716] BY MR. ALTO:
Q Doctor, do you agree with this statement: That if
the procedure of treating addicts by the use of metha-
done is conceived as no more than an unsupervised dis-
tribution of narcotic drugs to addicts for self-administra-
tion of doses and at times of their choosing, then few
physicians would accept it as proper medical practice,
an uncontrolled supply of drugs would trap confirmed
addicts in a closed world of drug taking and tend to
spread addiction.
Do you agree with that statement?
A Would you read that statement to me again? . It
covers quite a few words.
Q If the procedure of treating drug addicts by the
use [762] of methadone is conceived as no more than
an unsupervised distribution of narcotic drugs to addicts
for self-administration of doses at times of their choos-
ing, then few physicians would accept it as proper medi-
cal practice, an uncontrolled supply of drugs would trap
confirmed addicts in a closed world of drug taking and
tend to spread addiction.
Do you agree with that?
A No, I do not agree with that because that runs
contrary to exactly what I was doing.
(V-6] Q Right, and going back to what you developed
before the Grand Jury on October 22, 1970, didn’t you
also tell them that in the future of your program you-
were going to consult with Dr. DuPont and run the city
program the way the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs said it should be run?
A Yes, but I found out that that was impossible to
consult with Dr. DuPont.
Q Well how about other doctors who were running
the city programs?
A The only doctor that I knew of who was running
the city program, ran it and the only one was Dr.
DuPont and Dr. DuPont made the point also that the
city run program was to be handled their way but it
106
was impossible for me to consult with Dr. DuPont. Dr.
DuPont was supposed to be at a series of meetings given
by the D.C. Medical Society and it was [V-7] just im-
possible to speak to him—there were to be present these
three men that were involved with Dr. DuPont in an
attempt to lay out an attack against drug addiction in
Washington, D.C. and surrounding areas, but none of
these were at the meeting, you know, with Dr. DuPont.
Q Did you ever confer with Dr. DuPont about the
matter of detoxification?
A I went down to Dr. DuPont’s office and he and I
had a conversation.
Q Did you talk about his program and how he de-
toxified and how he maintained and controlled the supply
of methadone to addicts?
A No, because I already had this information on hand.
One of the persons that was working in Dr. DuPont’s
program, one of the counsels over at 14th and Q, sup-
plied me with this information and I was able to read it.
Q Well the fact of the matter is that you did not
adjust your program as you told the Grand Jury in line
with the city program or in line with what the Bureau
of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs said you ought to do
or the Food and Drug Administration?
A I adjusted my program after talking with Dr.
DuPont and after reading the literature that I cited
in my protocol.
You mean the article by Lady Frankel?
A All of those articles that you have there.
[V-8] Q Well what other doctor in this country for
the record has given out prescriptions in the amounts and
times that you did—what other doctors follow your
method?
A I don’t know of any other doctor in this
that follows that method. I am not saying het thew
is no other doctor that follows the method but there
may very well be. I just don’t know of him—he has
not written anything in the literature to that effect.
Q Then you will admit, Dr. Moore, that your con-
duct and practice was not in accordance with the stand-
ards of ethical practice generally recognized i
States for the detoxification of addicts? zed in the United
107
A No I cannot say that. The only thing that I can
say is that my way of treating drug addiction possibly
was not in accord to the way that Dr. DuPont or the
way that the D.C. Med. Society would feel that drug
addiction should be treated in Washington, D.C. In fact,
the D.C. Medical Association took the position that they
hadn’t given any physician authority at all to treat any
addict in his office on a patient-doctor relationship.
Q Well the D.C. Medical Society set up guidelines,
isn’t that right—
A Well this was—
Q They set up guidelines on April 1, 1971 as to
how a private physician ought to detoxify?
[V-9] A They set up guidelines.
Q And you didn’t follow those guidelines, did you?
A No, but I was at a meeting when the guidelines
were presented to me and other doctors were also at this
meeting—
Q So you were fully aware of those guidelines, is
that correct?
A Yes I was fully aware and I have testified about
the guidelines before the City Council.
Q Doctor, is there not a standard set out in these
guidelines here and everywhere else in this country
that within a week’s time you detoxify someone to get
him to hold a level where he won’t get ill, and then you
gradually reduce the doses until he is drug free. Is
that not the standard for detoxification in the country?
A That is the standard method in Washington, D.C.
but when you say if it is the standard in the rest of the
country I don’t know. I don’t know what the rest of the
country is doing. I haven’t travelled in this country out-
side of Washington, D.C. for quite some time and I don’t
know what the rest of the country is doing. The only
thing I know is that the rest of the country is not doing
enough in the fight against drug addiction. That is one
thing I do know. 0 f i
[V-22] Q And then didn’t they [Federal Food and
Drug Administration] send you a letter on April 23,
1971 setting out the deficiencies that you had agreed to
108
correct and what you had agreed to do to correct them.
Do you recall that letter?
A I don’t recall the letter. I recall receiving a letter
Q You do?
(V-23] A Do you have a copy of that—does the U. S.
Attorney have it?
MR. ALTO: Ido. Your Honor, this is Exhibit 30.
THE COURT: Yes, you may refer to it.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q I hand you Government’s Exhibit No. 30 and refer
you to this letter which is dated April 23, 1971 and it is
addressed to you.
THE COURT: It has been marked but you may show
it to Mr. Brown.
MR. BROWN: I don’t mind him looking at it, Your
* but we would like to be just apprised of what
it is.
MR. ALTO: Well it is an exhibit marked for iden-
tification as Number 30.
THE COURT: Well Mr. Alto would you just hand it
to Mr. Brown and let Mr. Brown look at it.
(Whereupon defense counsel exhibited the document
marked as Exhibit No. 30 for identification)
THE COURT: Alright, doctor, you may now answer
the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I remember receiving this
letter.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q This letter?
A Les.
Q Alright, now did it tell you that in view of the
[V-24] potential danger to the public health from op-
portunities for diversion of methadone and of the danger
to the health of individual subjects who may not be
trully dependent on narcotics from administering metha-
done to them, that they found certain requirements to be
absolute necessities in your program and that you had
agreed to the following chan to be instituted im-
wl ges institu im
109
“1, Admit no new subjects to the methadone main-
tenance program.”
Do you recall that?
A I recall that.
And they told you that because you had plenty of
patients, isn't that right?
A No, no, they didn’t tell me that for that reason.
Every one of those points that you have there, I had
given them while I was talking to them. These were my
recommendations that on a telephone call to Dr. Scoville,
I myself composed those, that whole letter.
Q But you did after you composed that whole letter,
you did agree to admit no new patients to the program?
A Yes, because at that time the FDA and myself
were in disagreement as to the best possible way to treat
drug dependence in the Metropolitan area and I called
Mr. Scoville up and I quoted to him or a spoke to him
over the phone as to what steps I would take until this
difference of opinion was [V-25] resolved, and what you
are also reading was in gist was delivered by me, hand
delivered, to the chairman of the Committee for Drug
Abuse for the District of Columbia. Dr. Scoville didn’t
compose any of that letter—all of that language right
there is mine, and the only thing he did was copy it
down and then mail me a letter to that effect, after
attaching that first paragraph you just read.
Q Then it is true that you yourself said “I will admit
no new patients to my practice”?
A During that time over our difficulties or our dis-
agreement—lI should say, myself and the Food and Drug
Administration.
Q Is it not a fact that you violated that and you
did admit new patients?
A Er—after I thought—in fact, Mr. Ungar who at
that point was my attorney, terminated, was explaining
back and forth with Dr. Scoville by phone—I was al-
ways in Mr. Ungar’s office when these phone calls were
made—no, no, no, no—may I retract that?
Q Well could you just answer the question? Did you
in fact admit new patients in violation of this admoni-
tion?
110
A Yes, yes, after
Q As a matter of fact, Dr., is it not true that—
A After, after negotiations were undertaken by Mr.
Ungar and Dr. Scoville at the FDA.
[V-27] Q Now, doctor, is it not a fact that after this
letter was sent you took into your program Bobbie King,
Forris Ensor and Jerome Brooks, three of the witnesses
that I have put on the witness stand?
A I wouldn’t know unless I saw the records.
[V-28] Q Well here is the jacket on Bobbie King which
is Government’s Exhibit No. 1. What is the date that
he came into the program?
A Bobbie King came into the program 6.10.71.
Q June 10, 1971, after this letter and before you
got your IND terminated, right?
A What is the date of that letter?
Q April 23, 1971 and you were terminated in July,
right?
A Yes, he came into the program in the next month.
Q Well where is the laboratory testing in that file
on Bobbie King?
A Bobbie King, Bobbie King did not go for his ex-
amination but my records bear out as of 6.10.71 Bobbie
King’s records are stamped that he was received into
the program and he was sent for chest-at the time he
was sent for laboratory studies and he was given 44
ce's of methadone.
Q Well what were the results of that chest film,
was it, at the lab and the laboratory testing?
A Bobbie King obviously didn’t go. The only thing
that I can do since I don’t have lab facilities in my
office, if this extends to the manner of testing that the
Food and Drug Administration wanted—the only thing
that I could do was as any other doctor, instruct the
patient that it is vital that certain laboratory tests
should be conducted and as [V-29] recommended at cer-
tain places, and tell him where to go and give him the
address of the laboratory testing, marked off on an order
form as to exactly what tests I wanted and, as a matter
of fact, I contacted the man who was in charge of the
BNW State Laboratory and told him what tests I needed
111
for the FDA and he gave me a special price, a lower
price than they would normally charge. I think he told
me he charged normally for that work, it was 825 and
he told me if all my patients came up he would do it
for $15 and I passed this information on to every single
one of my patients who came in during this discussion
period, this difficulty and this disagreement with the
FDA—every patient that came in was instructed to go
and have these tests done.
Q And Bobbie King didn’t get those tests done, right?
A Bobbie King didn’t get them done. He didn’t go
and get the testing.
Q And did it make any difference to you—it didn't,
did it?
A Yes, it made a lot of difference to me.
Q But you kept on giving him methadone, didn’t
you?
A Because he needed it and I, as his physician, felt
that I was ethically bound to give this man his medica-
tion as long as it was available.
Q Well, doctor, didn’t that statement of the Food
and Drug Administration say “all patients who have
been in your [V-30] program of methadone maintence
therapy will receive laboratory testing as outlined in the
Federal Register”?
A “will receive” or may receive, but this is the only
time, as I mentioned, this was the only time that we
were in total disagreement as to exactly how drug de-
pendents should be treated and Dr. Scoville—
THE COURT: Just a moment, may I interrupt you,
counsel would you approach the bench?
(At the bench)
THE COURT: Mr. Brown, I think the record will
reflect my patience with your man, but he is not being
responsive here. He is just wandering all over the record
and he isn’t getting down to anything. I have not wanted
to intervene and start directing him because I don’t
want any remark of mine to be an influence on the jury
so I haven’t spoken about it but I really think it has
reached a point where we have to have some responsi-
bility in terms of the administration of this trial as
112
reflected in the record. This man has just gone all over
the lot and there is no way to control his responsiveness
or anything else and, as I say, we just have to do some-
thing if this trial is ever going to end.
MR. JOHNSON: May I suggest to Your Honor that
we have a five minute recess.
THE COURT: Well I have tried that before and I
am not willing to try it again. I would like to move this
case.
[V-31] MR. JOHNSON: Ves.
THE COURT: I just wanted to let you know that I
have got to do something to see that this case proceeds
in accordance with the standards. He has had ample
opportunity for the jury to get a feeling of his per-
sonality and his dedication or whatever it is.
MR. BROWN: Well I would like Your Honor to know
we are in complete agreement with you. We have a
client who has that type of personality problem and we
would not ask for a recess except in view of Your Honor’s
feelings just as an extra precaution before the inter-
vention of Your Honor, is you would give us this one
last opportunity.
THE COURT: Well, yes, I will do that. That is
why I called you up.
MR. JOHNSON: We will speak to him, yes.
THE COURT: As I say, I have been staying out of
it and it has taken some patience on the part of the
court, I can assure you.
MR. BROWN: Yes, Your Honor, and it has caused
some anxiety on my part, I can assure the court.
THE COURT: Oh yes, and I don’t think at this stage
it is helping your client, either, because he is just re-
peating himself. I think we ought to move along so we
will take a ten minute recess at this time if that is
agreeable.
MR. ALTO: Certainly, Your Honor.
[V-32] (End of bench conference)
(Whereupon a ten minute recess was taken)
MR. ALTO: Now I show you Government’s Exhibit
No. 6 in evidence which is the file of Forris Ensor.
113
Would you look in that file, doctor, and see when he
came into your program?
A Mr. Forris Ensor entered my program on the 6th,
6.10.71.
The same day as Bobbie King, wasn’t it?
The same day as Bobbie King.
Was he ever sent to have laboratory testing?
Yes he was.
And where are the results?
I have no results. The patient didn’t go.
And that didn’t make any difference to you?
Whether he went?
Right.
No, it didn’t make any difference to me.
Even though you testified you had been told that
it was required in this letter that they would receive
lab testing—it didn’t make any difference to you?
A This was a stipulation under the maintenance pro-
gram. It was never my intent to maintain the program,
to maintain patients. My intent was to detoxify patients
and get them off completely, off of all drugs.
Q Doctor, wasn’t your testimony initially when I
[V-33] showed you this letter that you are the one that
composed the letter and you are the one that set out
these requirements?
A Yes, that’s true.
Q And Government’s Exhibit No. 13, I believe, is the
file of Jerome Brooks, another witness who has testified
in this case. When did he come into your program?
A He entered the program on 5.28.71.
Q Was he sent for laboratory testing?
A Yes he was.
Q What were the results?
A Mr. Jerome Brooks was sent on 5.27.71 for chest
film, lab testing and he never went.
Q Doctor, then you admit that the first three re-
quirements set out by the FDA or that you claim you
dictated to them, you violated, is that correct?
A As a maintenance program, yes. I never wanted
to maintain patients on methadone. I wanted to make
them completely drug free.
OPO PO PO PO PO
114
Did they further send out to you or did you die-
tate this to them:
“In possible new subjects, monitoring by you or your
delegate of ingestion or the investigational drugs by
the subject, daily during the initial weeks of ad-
ministration”
Did you comply with that?
(V-34] A No I did not. We are constantly talking
about the maintenance program and the IND number
which I totally disagreed with.
Q But you dictated this letter for the FDA, you say?
A Yes, this was—this was because this was the only
thing that I could obtain, the only reason I could obtain
methadone, to give to my patients, to detoxify them and
_ them drug free. This was the only way I could
it.
Q Was there further stipulation as to regular test-
ing for drugs on the subject’s urine collected under
surveillance and the recording of the results in detail,
as to relative findings adequate to establish diagnoses of
— dependence on drugs, did you comply with that?
0.
Q None of the urine was taken under surveillance,
is that it?
A Only near the end of my program when I got,
I got the vague impression that persons who were com-
ing to me might not, er, might not be addicts.
Q You say at the end of your program or near the
end of your program?
A Yes, at that time I would have the guard take the
male patients back to make sure that it was, that the
particular person urinated in the bottle, and I would
have one of my nurses take the female patients back.
[V-35] Q And your program ended on February 11,
is that correct?
A My program ended on February 11, yes.
Q Was January 25th near the end of your program?
A No it was not.
Q Well when did you start having urines collected
under surveillance?
A When I felt that what I was hearing from my
patients did not constitute what the really drug de-
115
pendent person would say to a doctor when asked what
his problem was and on my observation of that par-
ticular patient as a doctor, I began to have doubts as
to whether certain people coming into my office were in
fact drug addicts.
THE COURT: The question is: what date between
the 25th of January and the 11th of February did you
reach such a determination?
THE WITNESS: Honestly I don’t, I don’t know
which date it was. It was never marked down any place.
BY MR. ALTO:
Q So, doctor, all of the guidelines they sent out to
you you violated?
A I can’t say all of them. You are talking about all
of the guidelines in 134.44?
Q I am talking about the letter that they sent to you
that you say you dictated.
[V-36] A Yes.
Q And in that statement, does it not nevertheless
say “failure to comply will force us to consider terminat-
ing your IND number’?
A I didn’t, if you are reading the letter, yes I would
say that was generally done—that I and my attorney
at that time were receiving from the FDA—
Q Just a minute, I hand you the exact statement
and in the last sentence of that letter, if you will read
that—
A That is the last sentence of the letter.
Q So you were warned by that that if you did not
comply with these conditions you were going to be re-
voked?
A Yes.
Q And there came a time that they came back and
reinspected you to see if you were complying with these
conditions, isn’t that correct?
A Yes.
Q And on June 28, 1971 they sent you a letter ter-
minating you, isn’t that right?
A I don’t, I don’t remember the date but the letter
was hand delivered and it had a date July 28, I be
lieved, that the number would be terminated.
116
Q I hand you the same exhibit, Exhibit No. 30, and
direct your attention to the letter dated June 28, 1971
— to you. Is that the letter you received from
m
[V-37] A This is the letter I received from them.
Q And in that letter, doctor, didn’t they tell you
they were terminating your number because of the
manner in which you were using the drug, because the
manner in which you were using it was unsafe and fur-
ther that the investigation was not being conducted in
accordance with the plan as submitted, and that the
investigation presented imminent hazard to the public
health, primarily due to indirection of the investigation
—didn’t they tell you that, doctor?
A That is what they told me by letter, that is not
what they told me in person. That was a letter they re-
leased to the news media also.
[RECROSS EXAMINATION OF
THOMAS W. MOORE, IR.]
(V-58] Q Didn't Mr. Jacob Stein, as the result of that
conference with Mr. Glanzer where you were present and
there was a detailed conference where you agreed to
iron out certain things with respect to dealing with meth-
adone, isn’t that correct?
A Right.
Q Didn’t Mr. Stein send you a memorandum as a
result of that conference and the agreements that you
and Mr. Glanzer had reached and didn’t you receive that
letter?
A Yes, sir.
Q And didn’t you violate every one of those advise-
ments that he put in that memorandum?
A I don’t know if I violated them, every single item
in that memorandum, I don’t remember it word for
word.
(Whereupon a document was marked for identifica-
tion as Government’s Exhibit No. 31)
ee Le
117
[INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY]
[V-134] THE COURT: (THE HONORABLE GER-
HARD A. GESELL): Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury:
We have reached that stage in the case where it becomes
the duty and obligation of the Court to instruct the
Members of the Jury as to the law. You are required
to follow these instructions in exercising your responsi-
bility, which is to pass on the facts of the case. You may
not question any rule of law as the Court states it to
you. You are the sole judges of the facts and you must
determine the facts from the evidence you have heard
from the witness stand, from the exhibits in evidence,
from any stipulations of counsel, and the inferences
reasonably deducible therefrom.
What the Court proposes to do is to first discuss with
the Members of the Jury certain basic, fundamental prin-
ciples of law that apply in any criminal case tried in this
courthouse, and in this courtroom, under the Constitution
and Law of this country.
Then the Court proposes to turn to a discussion of the
elements of the offenses charged, bringing into focus
clearly what the factual issues presented to you are in
this case. You have just heard the able arguments of
counsel on both sides. What the attorneys say is not
evidence. If your recollection differs from the recollection
of either of the attorneys, it is your recollection and your
recollection alone, which controls.
[V-135] The arguments, or summary arguments, as
they are sometimes called, are limited and, if in the
heat of advocacy or in the short time they have avail-
able, the attorneys failed to mention some aspect of the
evidence which came to your attention, you must con-
sider that as well as any evidence which was mentioned
by either of the attorneys.
The function of the Court, as I am sure you well
know, is to attempt to conduct an orderly and efficient
trial, to rule on matters of evidence or procedural ques-
tions that might arise in the course of the case, either
up here at the Bench or when we were discussing some
kind of legal problem or ruling on something in open
court. Occasionally, the Court in this trial and in every
118
trial, as asked questions of some witness or other, or has
asked something of Counsel. You are not in any way to
draw any inference of any kind as to how the facts
should be decided in this case from anything that the
Court has done or said in the course of this trial. There
is nothing that I am going to do or say in the course of
these instructions which is intended to convey to you how
the Court feels the facts in this case should be deter-
mined because I again say and emphasize to you that
you are the sole judges of the facts.
It is my obligation to present to you the underlying
legal considerations which should guide you in your deter-
mination of the facts.
[V-136] I have emphasized the necessity of your decid-
ing this case upon what has occurred here in the trial.
You must decide the case solely on evidence presented and
you must completely disregard any press, television or
radio reports which you might have read, seen or heard.
Every defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be
innocent, and this presumption of innocense attaches to
a defendant throughout the trial. The burden is on the
Government to prove the defendant guilty beyond a rea-
sonable doubt. If the government fails to sustain this
burden then you must find the defendant not guilty.
The Defendant is not required to prove his innocense
under our system of jurisprudence.
Now, counsel have used the term “reasonable doubt”
and the Court will use the term “reasonable doubt” on a
number of occasions and it is important that you under-
stand what is meant in law by this term. It is a doubt
based on reason. It doesn’t mean any doubt whatsoever;
it is not a fanciful doubt or a whimsical doubt, or a doubt
based wholly on conjecture. Proof beyond a reasonable
doubt as proof to a moral certainty, but not necessarily
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.