Horsemen's Fund for Legal Appeal of Murray Rojas

On June 30th,  a jury convicted Murray Rojas of rebranding of medication only, a misdemeanor.   This charge is being appealed and the appeal will likely be won. She was aquited of all other felony charges. This leaves a very grey area open for all horsemen. Murray will have to file an appeal at a cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. This appeal will be very beneficial to the racing industry. If this appeal is not filed, or is lost in appeal court,  the decision will have great ramifications not only for Penn National trainers but for every trainer in the industry. No trainer will be out of reach from federal prosecution.  It wouldn't take much for all trainers to help out.   Murray bears a great weight on her shoulders taking the brunt of this for all trainers and owners.  This fight, on behalf of all horsemen, has cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars. Let's help give back any way we can. She is the loving mother of 5 great daughters and one grandson. She has been in the horse industry all her life. She helped start the New Start retirement plan for horses at Penn National. She's fought this battle to the end.  Summary of Jury Verdict in Rojas Case: On Friday, June 30, 2017, the jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered its finding in the pending criminal case against  horse trainer Murray Rojas.   The jury found that Ms. Rojas was not guilty of the core and heart of the government’s case, the six (6) counts of wire fraud and the one (1) count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud that were brought against her.  The attorney for Ms. Rojas considers this decision a resounding victory for not only Rojas but also for all horsemen.  However, the jury did find  Ms. Rojas guilty on the charges of misbranding animal drugs and a count of conspiracy to commit misbranding.  Ms. Rojas' defense counsel stated that the jury verdict was a strong victory because the most troubling charges involving wire fraud are by statute very broad and all inclusive type charges that have been used successfully in the past.  The misbranding charges are very specific and the elements of these charges were not proven during the trial.   The government asserted that Ms. Rojas committed the crime of misbranding (and, conspiracy to misbrand) by instructing licensed veterinarians to “administer” animal drugs to race horses (owned or trained by Rojas) on race day.  The attorneys for Ms. Rojas state that this does not constitute the crime of misbranding (or conspiracy to commit same) because both the relevant statute relied upon, to wit, 21 U.S.C. 353(f)(1)(C), and the extant case law, applies only to pharmacists or others who sell or “dispense” drugs to others, as does not apply to veterinarians or trainers who administer drugs to their horses. Thus, the use of this statute was improper overreaching by the government.   Not only did the government fail to prove that Ms. Rojas personally dispensed any animal drugs but, it affirmatively introduced evidence that the licensed co-conspirator veterinarians (who were under extreme pressure to testify in a most favorable way for the government under plea deals) did not “dispense” any drugs in this case either.  Never in the history of criminal law has the crime of misbranding been used to convict anyone under these circumstances because these circumstances do not fit within the elements necessary to establish such crime. It is appears to the defense that the government went to unprecedented and extraordinary lengths to invent a violation in order to prosecute this trainer.   The defense for Ms. Rojas is convinced that Ms. Rojas will be vindicated upon appeal of this matter which they intend to file in the coming days.    If you would like to speak with the attorney for Ms. Rojas (Robert Goldman), he would be pleased to discuss this matter with you.  As he noted to us, Ray Paulick attended the trail but would not even speak to him while spending all his time with the attorneys for the government prosecuting this case and only attending while the prosecution presented its side and not while the defense put on evidence showing while this was an improper prosecution.

Funded Justice