Judge Tosses Jury Verdicts Against Anna Nicole Smith's Boyfriend

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 09:13:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Howard K. Stern caught a break today when the judge threw out the jury's guilty verdicts against him.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert J. Perry dismissed two counts of conspiring to provide prescription drugs against Howard K. Stern, 42, Smith's lawyer and boyfriend at the time of her death in 2007, saying there was "insufficient evidence," despite the fact a jury had convicted him in October.

The judge also dismissed all but one guilty verdict against Anna Nicole Smith's former psychiatrist -- and reduced that remaining count to a misdemeanor.

Judge Perry dismissed the charges at Thursday's sentencing for the two defendants, saying there was no evidence of a conspiracy and that he believed Smith suffered from chronic pain and needed the drugs.

"This case should never have been brought," Stern's lawyer Steve Sadow said outside the court. "It was a waste of time and a waste of effort. And it impacted people's lives in a horrible way."

The prosecution says it will appeal.

< Ex-CIA Agent Indicted for Leaks to NY Times Reporter | Thursday Night TV and Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Judge Tosses Jury Verdicts Against Anna Nicole Smith's Boyfriend | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Agreed, Ditto with MJ (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 08:45:46 AM EST

Toss M Jackson in the mix too. Grown a** people taking drugs and ending up dead. It's tragic, but trying to hold someone responsible for the an addicts death is shameful.

When an addict wants drugs, they will get them and trying to put these deaths on the enablers is pure non-sense.

Good for the judge, but I would add that it seems more than a little odd that her psychiatrist is prescribing pain meds.

Amen Scott... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 09:06:31 AM EST

Pure nonsense.

What's next, prosecuting people who buy/bring alcoholics drinks? Same thing, no? Except, of course, we were smart enough to repeal alcohol prohibition after seeing the error in it. Here we are, still playing the tyrannical dummy when it comes to other intoxicants. But the money is good, and it gives persecutors jobs and something dirty to do.


Better Yet (5.00 / 0) (#7)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 12:27:02 PM EST

How about we go after every single doctor that prescribed her meds, it was the sum of all the drugs that killed her, not just the one prescription, no ?

Let's start holding drug dealers responsible for all drug related deaths. Who cares if you were person X's first drug dealer 10 years ago, you are still in the chain that lead to that person's death.

Why not hold the corner cashier responsible when I die in 30 years from smoking because he sold me cigs one time when I was 17. Then go after Toyota for selling a known drunk driver a car. It's not the drunk's fault, it the company that supplied the car, right ?

This could go one forever, eventually every idiot that dies prematurely will have another person sitting in prison for their death. Because in America, grown adults cannot be held responsible for their own stupidity, especially if they die, there has to be another who enabled the stupidity one way or another.


: That works (none / 0) (#8)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 02:17:58 PM EST

In product liablity cases - why not this one?

: It used to be... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 03:21:27 PM EST

"every death is a tragedy"...now its "every death is a crime".

So a judge issued a medical opinion (none / 0) (#1)
by Joan in VA on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 09:41:27 PM EST

that she was in chronic pain and therefore it was not unlawful that her boyfriend and a psychiatrist provide her with so many drugs that she eventually died. Alrighty then.

Versus What ? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 08:58:26 AM EST

A jury issuing a medical opinion that she didn't need them ?

I would hardly call either a medical opinion, just opinions. Even doctors can't determine pain levels, they use silly charts with cartoon faces.

Pain is immeasurable and even if she wasn't in pain, she took the meds and I think its absurd to hold another responsible, she would have got the meds one way or another if she truly wanted them.

I am just so tired of society blaming the wrong person in these situations. Only one person ingested the pills and she did it of her own free will, blaming the enablers is wrong.


I guess (none / 0) (#2)
by NYShooter on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 03:45:19 AM EST

We should turn over medical treatment and advice that a trained, licensed physician prescribes for you to a panel of lay people for their approval.

Makes sense to me.


: I Wasn't Saying That. (none / 0) (#6)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 12:07:30 PM EST

But holding other people responsible for their drug habit and eventual death is misplaced. Pull the license if the prescriptions were faulty, but don't hold them responsible for an addicts death.
She was on drugs for years and I am positive she knew exactly what to say to the doctor after years of honing her skills. It's how they slip through the system.
Are we do go after crack dealers when one of their clients dies after years of abuse ? But for some reason we should go after the doctor who was the current prescriber, what about the dozens of doctors before this one, how about the first doctor who one could argue got her addicted ?
What about doctors who sell to people who resell their meds ? If one should know patient is lying, then one should know their patient is selling the meds, no ?
Anna was a grown woman who is the only person responsible for her death, period.

so who needs juries? (none / 0) (#10)
by diogenes on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 05:40:13 PM EST

If judges are going to be the ultimate arbiters of fact as well as of law, why not get rid of juries and save a bunch of money?