McClatchey makes two arguments against the reasonableness of such an inference. He first contends that his surprise at learning of the failure to provide services and his directive to McGrath and legal counsel to investigate and remedy that situation belies an inference of criminal intent. McClatchey also argues that his actions throughout the negotiation process cannot give rise to an inference of his criminal intent because they were entirely directed and controlled by legal counsel.
Here, the Court concluded that this argument, however, ignores the further evidence that McClatchey knew the hospital staff did not even want or need some of the services specified in the contract; based on that additional evidence, a jury could reasonably
Here, the Court concluded that this argument, however, ignores the further evidence that McClatchey knew the hospital staff did not even want or need some of the services specified in the contract; based on that additional evidence, a jury could reasonably