Background
Faith Newton’s company, Arbor Homecare Services LLC, fraudulently billed MassHealth, Massachusetts’ Medicaid program, more than $99 million in connection with a home-health-care scheme. A jury convicted Newton of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, health care fraud, and three money-laundering counts after a 2024 retrial. The district court imposed 144 months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, a $250,000 fine, and $99,734,517.50 in restitution.
Newton had worked with or been assisted by numerous lawyers during the case. After conflicts with appointed counsel shortly before retrial, she elected to proceed pro se with standby counsel following a second Faretta colloquy. She also sought to suppress inculpatory texts obtained through CBP’s forensic search of her phone when she returned from Kenya in 2017. At sentencing, the court used the approximately $99.7 million MassHealth paid Arbor as the loss figure and applied a sophisticated-means enhancement.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed in full. Newton knowingly, voluntarily, and unequivocally waived counsel after receiving extensive warnings about the risks of self-representation. Her stated desire to hire counsel if restrained assets were later released did not make her present decision to proceed pro se equivocal. The district court also permissibly required her to choose between proceeding with existing counsel, representing herself with standby counsel, or hiring trial-ready counsel, given the impending trial and her repeated attorney conflicts.
The court held that Newton waived her appellate challenge to the reasonable suspicion for the phone search because her pretrial suppression motion challenged only the lack of a warrant and the AUSA’s involvement, not the sufficiency of reasonable suspicion. Her sentencing arguments were likewise unpreserved and waived because she did not argue plain error on appeal. The court therefore left intact the loss calculation and sophisticated-means enhancement.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s informed and clear election to represent herself remains valid even if she hopes to retain counsel later.
- A suppression motion must specifically raise the legal ground later pursued on appeal; a court’s discussion of an issue does not cure the omission.
- Sentencing arguments not preserved below, and not supported by a plain-error argument on appeal, may be treated as waived.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that trial courts may keep a criminal case on schedule when a defendant repeatedly changes counsel or seeks last-minute substitutions, so long as the defendant receives a meaningful choice and adequate Faretta warnings.
It also illustrates the First Circuit’s strict preservation rules for suppression and sentencing issues, including for defendants who proceed pro se.