Source: Chicago Tribune (IL) Contact: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/ Pubdate: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 Author: Glen Elsasser 2 EX-COPS IN CHICAGO WIN COCAINE RETRIAL WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court forced U.S. prosecutors Monday to retry two former Chicago police officers and the two sons of one officer, whose convictions in a cocaine distribution conspiracy were reversed last year because of a mistake in the jury selection process. The Justice Department argued to the court in April that the trial judge's error hadn't denied the defendants any "substantial right." A Court of Appeals ruled last year that it "violated (their) due process rights by impairing the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges." The justices Monday refused to hear the government's appeal. The purported ringleaders of the wide-ranging conspiracy were Richard Messino and Clement Messino, both former police officers who received life sentences after a 10-week trial in 1995. Richard Messino's two sons, Paul and Christopher Messino, each received sentences of nearly 20 years. According to the government appeal, the conspiracy involved purchasing large quantities of cocaine in Florida, transporting it to Illinois and reselling it in the Chicago area between 1980 and 1991. "It is undisputed . . . that all of the seated jurors were impartial," the Justice Department told the court. "At most the error in the present case caused two potential jurors who otherwise would have been excused to participate as regular jurors." Government lawyers had urged the court to hear their appeal to correct what they argued were conflicting rulings by lower courts on the issue. Also Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether individuals can sue health insurers for fraudulent conduct under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Unlike state law, the racketeering law allows successful litigants to recover treble damages and the costs of their lawsuits. The appeal focuses on charges that Humana Sunrise Hospital, owned by Humana Inc., secretly arranged for discounts of between 40 percent and 96 percent from Humana Health Insurance of Nevada. Insurance policies obligated Humana Insurance to pay 80 percent of a beneficiary's hospital charges over and above a designated deductible amount; the beneficiary paid the remaining 20 percent. According to the lawsuit by policy beneficiaries, they continued to be billed for their co-payments as if the hospital were still charging the full, undiscounted rate. A federal judge dismissed their claims, holding that the racketeering law's tougher penalties would "invalidate, impair or supersede" Nevada insurance law. The U.S. appeals court in San Francisco later reversed on grounds there was no conflict between Nevada law and the racketeering law. The Supreme Court also agreed Monday to decide whether the testimony of engineering experts must comply with the rigid standards of reliability of scientific evidence. The case arose from an Alabama lawsuit against a tire manufacturer. Federal judges are required to scrutinize so-called scientific evidence before it can be used as evidence, but courts are divided over whether this applies to engineers' testimony. - --- Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)