Judge rules experts can’t testify at pretrial hearing in Snyder attempted extortion case

A federal judge ruled that several experts called upon by indicted medical malpractice attorney Stephen L. Snyder cannot testify at his motions hearing next week.

In an order last week, U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman ruled that all four experts Snyder proposed cannot testify during the July 26 hearing on his motions to dismiss the case.

Snyder is facing an attempted extortion charge for threatening to launch a public relations campaign in 2018 against the University of Maryland Medical System if it did not pay him $25 million.

The indictment against Snyder alleges he threatened to go public about problems with UMMS’ flagship hospital’s organ transplant program if UMMS didn’t agree to a $25 million sham consulting deal.

According to the district court’s order, Snyder said the testimony of Ross Guberman, president of Legal Writing Pro, would have intended to resolve factual disputes between the parties, namely the details of what happened between an Aug. 23, 2018, meeting Snyder had with UMMS representatives and an Aug. 25, 2018, phone call relating to the consulting arrangement.

But Boardman considered the testimony not needed.

“This testimony is unnecessary to resolve the issues raised in the motions,” Boardman said, noting the court can do what Guberman might have proffered.

Boardman also declined the testimony of three other proposed experts, deeming the testimony as irrelevant. Snyder said Jack Anderson Marshall Jr., president of an ethics training and consulting company, would “testify that UMMS and some of its personnel acted unethically, and perhaps illegally, during the negotiations between UMMS and Mr. Snyder.”

Snyder also said that Jesse Schold, director of outcomes research in kidney transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and Antonio Di Carlo, surgical director at Temple University Hospital, would testify that Snyder had a good-faith belief that UMMS and some of its doctors committed medical malpractice.

“This proposed testimony about facts that may support Snyder’s defense that he acted in good faith and not with criminal intent is not relevant to the legal issues presented in the motions,” Boardman wrote.

Counsel for Snyder and a spokesperson for the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Snyder couched the consulting agreement as part of a settlement with a woman whose husband allegedly died because of a botched transplant at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Federal prosecutors say that Snyder did not intend to do any work for the money and was simply seeking a payout.

The deal also would have ensured that Snyder was “conflicted out” of future lawsuits against UMMS. Prosecutors said Snyder threatened to publicly expose problems with the medical center’s transplant program, including by going to the news media, if he did not get paid.

Snyder has denied the charges and argued that the consultancy offer was a real effort to reach a deal with UMMS.