Snyder held in contempt, minutes after closing arguments at federal trial

Listen to this article

Minutes after closing arguments concluded in his trial for attempted extortion, medical malpractice lawyer Stephen Snyder was held in contempt of court by U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Boardman.

UPDATE: Stephen Snyder found guilty of attempted extortion

Boardman ordered him to spend a night in prison for violating four court orders. As he was escorted out of court by two agents of the U.S. Marshals Service, Snyder remarked to those in the courtroom that he was going on a “vacation.”

Boardman waited to hold the emergency contempt hearing until the jury left on Thursday evening.

“I have given him extremely wide latitude throughout this trial,” Boardman said. “Summary contempt is the only way to restore order in my courtroom.”

Day 6 of trial: Former client didn’t want Snyder to flip to ‘their side’ under consultancy

Snyder mentioned in his closing argument the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute him in 2018 in violation of her orders. He mentioned a grievance proceeding and a Justice Department official he wasn’t supposed to discuss.

He also repeatedly attempted to testify through his questioning of witnesses, which Boardman said was an “obvious and clear violation of several of my orders.”

“He has continued to do it despite my orders and admonitions,” she said.

Snyder objected due to his health, and she required him to fill out a standard form detailing his health care needs.

Earlier on Thursday, prosecutors portrayed Snyder as power-hungry and belligerent in their closing arguments.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Evelyn Cusson said Snyder crossed the line in demanding $25 million for a no-show consulting agreement, or else he would go on a blistering media campaign.

“This is a case about power and control,” Cusson told the jury. “The defendant more than crossed the line of being an advocate in this case.”

Day 5 of trial: Prosecution rests, Snyder tells witness to ‘go back to Fenwick’

In his response, Snyder expressed anger at what he called a “made-up case.” He said that what hospital officials considered to be threats were simply aggressive advocacy without criminal intent, and that they entrapped him.

“The University of Maryland had the motive and intent to get rid of its most worthy adversary,” he said. “If University of Maryland doesn’t want to do the deal, that’s the end of it.”

He said he felt the hospital system deserved to be sanctioned, but that he didn’t want to “destroy” it, as prosecutors alleged.

“I didn’t want to put them out of business,” he said. “I wanted to scare the hell out of them.”

If UMMS didn’t want a consulting agreement, which would have conflicted him out of lawsuits against the hospital’s transplant department, “I would have gone about my business, which was tremendously successful.”

“I never had intent,” Snyder said. “It’s ridiculous. You’re allowed to be aggressive if you have to be.”

Now that closing arguments have concluded, Snyder’s fate is in the hands of the jury, which will begin deliberating Friday morning.

Snyder hinted at — but was not allowed to mention directly — the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute him in 2018, and to ultimately reverse that decision and bring charges in 2020.

“If I was such a criminal, and what I did was so bad, you know the government would have brought this case much sooner,” he said.

With his career and legacy at stake, Snyder took a major risk in serving as his own lawyer. A trial lawyer for more than 50 years — albeit in the civil side, not criminal — Snyder believed no one could do a better job.

“I thought that I knew the facts enough to convey the message,” he said.

His self-representation caused a great deal of friction throughout the trial with Judge Deborah Boardman, who sustained the vast majority of prosecutors’ objections as Snyder failed to follow the rules of evidence and attempted to testify through his questions, many of which were irrelevant.

Multiple times each day, Boardman turned on a white-noise machine to privately discuss rules with both parties. The pattern continued Thursday as Snyder often failed to keep his statements within Boardman’s guardrails.

At one point, she said his statements weren’t evidence.

“Your statements aren’t evidence!” he shot back.

“That’s correct,” she said. 

Thursday’s only witness was Antonio Di Carlo, a professor and surgeon at Temple University in Philadelphia.

Snyder hired Di Carlo to provide expert reports on the care UMMS provided to two of his clients, including Jeffrey Sanders. Sanders died in February 2018, about 13 months after a kidney transplant. He and his wife, Michele Sanders, who testified Wednesday, hired Snyder to pursue a medical malpractice claim.

Di Carlo said he “didn’t see the benefits” of UMMS surgeons’ decision to give Jeffrey Sanders the kidney he received, saying it was too high-risk for the patient’s condition and medical history.

“Poor judgment was exercised by this department in selecting this kidney,” he said. UMMS settled Sanders’ case for $5 million.

On cross examination, Di Carlo said his work was limited to the care provided to specific patients, and was not a global review of the quality of UMMS’ transplant program, and he didn’t provide an opinion about whether UMMS prioritized profits over safety.

Day 4: Snyder struggles to follow rules during cross-examination

Day 3: ‘I felt very threatened by Mr. Snyder’

Day 2: ‘I don’t want to do it, so don’t make me do it’

Trial begins in lawyer Stephen Snyder’s attempted extortion case