People v. Gharrirassi CA4/3

I. INTRODUCTION

Dr. Amir Gharrirassi appeals from his conviction of six counts of insurance fraud: two counts each for writing reports about three young men to the effect he treated each of them 36 times when the jury found he treated each man only once.1 The reports said each man received the exact same treatment, on the same days, over a span of about four months. The three men, however, testified they had each only seen Dr. Gharrirassi one time. Gharrirassi’s argument that there is no substantial evidence of fraud appears to rely on evidence that $6,500 was paid out by an insurer to the mother of one of the men, combined with that man’s testimony he got nothing. Gharrirassi seems to be saying the discrepancy necessarily undermines all three men’s testimony they were treated only once. As we explain below, the argument is a non sequitur. Gharrirassi also argues that his constitutional right to testify was violated when his attorney did not call him to the stand and the court did not seek an express waiver of his right to testify. The facts behind this argument are that at a Marsden

Gharrirassi was convicted under two different subdivisions of the same statute, Penal…