"But a patient does not expect for their blood test results to be completely wrong."
The patient's state of mind, e.g., their expectations, is not an element of wire fraud. Only Holmes' state of mind is relevant, specifically, her intent.
"As a general rule, the crime is done when the scheme is hatched and an attendant mailing or interstate phone call or email has occurred. Thus, the statutes are said to condemn a scheme to defraud regardless of its success.34 It is not uncommon for the courts to declare that to demonstrate a scheme to defraud the government needs to show that the defendants communications were reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension.35 Even a casual reading, however, might suggest that the statutes also cover a scheme specifically designed to deceive a nave victim.36 Nevertheless, the courts have long acknowledged the possibility of a puffing defense, and there may be some question whether the statutes reach those schemes designed to deceive the gullible though they could not ensnare the reasonably prudent.37 In any event, the question may be more clearly presented in the context of the defendants intent and the materiality of the deception.38"
"In any event, the question may be more clearly presented in the context of the defendant's intent and the materiality of the deception."
Whether a patient expected that results might be inaccurate, or even whether a "reasonably prudent" person would have expected results might be inaccurate, is not necessarily a defence to wire fraud. Even if such a defence were asserted, the focus would still be on Holmes, her conduct and her intent, not the patient.
The patient's state of mind, e.g., their expectations, is not an element of wire fraud. Only Holmes' state of mind is relevant, specifically, her intent.
reply