The psychiatrist, Dr. Pike, didn’t "just say no," and now had to answer for his crimes. Of course he hadn’t exactly said yes-not explicitly-and that’s what the prosecutor had to prove.

It was other people’s drug habits he assisted and he was charged with multiple counts of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances in addition to filing false Medicaid claims.

Well, there is money to be made by well placed entrepreneurs who can provide a buffet fit for a king to those hooked on alternative venues of consciousness, but who lack a secure seat in the distribution network. From the Doctor’s own mouth (though he claims to have just been kidding) he was "the local drug pusher."

Do Good, but for Whom?

Expert testimony from law enforcement officers as well as medical experts in the fields of psychiatry and addiction had also been elicited by the Commonwealth in its case in chief. Dr. Pike was convicted, and appealed.

Dr. Pike raised several assignments of error. He claimed that there was no direct evidence of his intent to provide anything other than appropriate treatment to the poor souls for whom he became extremely popular. The evidence did show that he kept detailed treatment records of each patient and he also claimed that every treatment decision was appropriate.

He attacked the trial judge’s ruling allowing police officers to testify as experts about the methods "used by doctors and drug users in drug diversion operations," essentially arguing this constituted impermissible profile evidence. The Court rejected this argument ruling that the testimony concerned subject matter of which laymen would not be knowledgeable (the methods of doctors and users). Further the testimony from the officers was more "akin to a description of the modus operandi of (drug diverters) than a ’profile’ of a drug dealer."

The Appeals Court pointed out, however, that the Commonwealth had presented, factual testimony that supported the contention of prescribing activity that was excessive; that when asked for pain medication he failed to confirm the existence of an underlying condition; that he prescribed excessive dosages in excessive amounts; and, that he allowed renewals at intervals far more frequent than the dosing schedule would imply as reasonable.

This circumstantial evidence was sufficient, held the Court, to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The doctor may have failed to "just say no," but as to his appeal, that’s what the Court had to say.