The hearing date is set for April 5^th 2016.The Nevada Supreme Court has determined that oral argument may be of assistance in resolving Dr. Desai’s case. Dr. Desai’s conflicting independent medical evaluation report.  

Dr. Dipak Desai, serving life in prison, filed an appeal last year to reconsider his sentencing in the sensational case of hepatitis C outbreak at his Endoscopy Center. 

Earlier the motion to file Dr. Desai’s independent medical evaluation report under seal was denied by the court.  Dr. Desai’s medical reports were made public by the court.  Click here for Dr. Desai’s conflicting independent medical evaluation report.  

Dr. Desai’s legal counsel submitted multiple reasons supporting the need for oral argument in appealing the case.

Multiple violations of Appellant’s (Dr. Desai) constitutional rights during trial require reversal of Dr. Desai’s convictions. As per the filings by Dr. Desai’s attorneys’, his constitutional right to confrontation of witnesses was violated on three separate occasions: a testimonial death certificate prepared by a witness who did not appear at trial was admitted into evidence; a “surrogate” coroner was permitted to read from an autopsy report prepared by another coroner who was not called to appear at trial; and the State was permitted to present its entire direct examination of the decedent in a deposition, even though Dr. Desai’s counsel was not permitted to complete the last half of his cross-examination. The nature and degree of the State’s misconduct during the trial so infected the proceedings that Appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial, requiring reversal on all counts. Desai’s constitutional right to due process was violated when the trial court denied a competency evaluation and hearing although unrefuted evidence showed that Dr. Desai had suffered a series of strokes since his prior competency evaluation and he would not recover to his pre-stroke condition for 9-18 months, thereby creating a doubt as to his competency and requiring an evaluation and hearing under the competency statute.

Because the State lacked direct evidence on the essential elements of knowledge and criminal intent for purposes of the aiding and abetting and conspiracy, the State relied on inferences that were inferred from other inferences. At trial and in its Answering Brief, the State acknowledges that it had to prove that Dr. Desai knew and intended that some CRNAs were reusing a single syringe to reinject the same patient utilizing a vial of propofol and then reusing that same vial on a subsequent patient, and that Appellant knew that the combination of these injection practices posed a risk of infection transmission prior to the Hepatitis C outbreak. The State has failed to point to any direct evidence supporting a finding of knowledge and intent. To compensate for its lack of proof on these essential elements, the State constructed an Indictment and presented a case replete with extraneous and irrelevant “other act” allegations of “atmosphere,” which to be relevant at all, would require the type of logical gymnastics and “inference stacking” that this court has recently rejected.

Accordingly, this appeal requires an examination of the factual proof not ordinarily called for in many appeals. Finally, the State’s theory of Second Degree Felony Murder relied on no evidence of any direct acts by Dr. Desai and its case was the most extreme application of the doctrine ever applied by this state or any other.