Defense Sentencing Memorandum (Supplement) — United States v. Bernard Turk (C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Central District of California · No. 8:22-cr-00061-JLS · Doc. 36 · 2022-11-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
1 
 
 
LAW OFFICES OF EVAN A. JENNESS 
EVAN A. JENNESS (SBN 136822) 
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3800 
Los Angeles, California 90017 
Tel.: (213) 630-5088 
Fax: (213) 683-1225 
Email:  evan@jennesslaw.com 
 
Attorney for Defendant  
BERNARD TURK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
      v. 
 
 
BERNARD TURK, 
 
                    Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Case No. 22-cr-00061-JVS 
 
 
SUPPLEMENT TO BERNARD 
TURK’S SENTENCING BRIEF 
 
 
 
Sentencing Date: November 18, 2022 
Time:                      9:30 a.m. 
Place:  
 
First Street – 8A 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 8:22-cr-00061-JLS     Document 36     Filed 11/11/22     Page 1 of 4   Page ID #:232

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
2 
 
 
Bernard (“Bernie”) Turk, through counsel, submits the accompanying 
supplement to the defense’s sealed sentencing brief (ECF 29), and in further support of 
the defense’s request for sentencing leniency. 
DATED:  November 11, 2022 
LAW OFFICES OF EVAN A. JENNESS 
 
 
 
 
By: 
/s/ Evan A. Jenness 
 
EVAN A. JENNESS 
 
Counsel for Defendant  
BERNARD TURK 
 
 
 
 
Case 8:22-cr-00061-JLS     Document 36     Filed 11/11/22     Page 2 of 4   Page ID #:233

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
3 
 
 
SUPPLEMENT TO SENTENCING BRIEF 
After receiving the evaluation of Bernie Turk by Daniel Truong, M.D. (ECF 29, 
Exh B (sealed)), government counsel contacted the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) 
for information regarding its ability to provide medical care for Bernie Turk if he were 
to be incarcerated. 
On or about October 24, 2022, the BOP responded that it “can accommodate[] 
[Mr. Turk] in a BOP Medical Care Level 3 or 4 center (specially where we have 24 
hours nursing staff) and we have ability to care for this individual.  Special 
considerations are: Botulinum toxin injection and Artane (Trihexyphenidyl) approval.” 
The BOP physician who provided the preceding information also candidly 
acknowledged to government counsel that “obtaining approval for a non-formulary 
treatment in BOP is not easy!” (Punctuation as in original). 
The BOP’s response validates concerns reflected in the report of Dr. Truong, 
and in the letter from Bernie Turk’s treating health care provider, Kaiser Permanente, 
and further supports leniency for several reasons. 
First, the possibility that Mr. Turk would not in fact receive his needed 
treatment since “it is not easy” for BOP physicians to obtain approval for such non-
formulary medications.  While the BOP physician stated, “we have the ability to care 
for this individual,” he did not assure that the BOP would in fact provide the needed 
care.  Indeed, he specifically warned of the administrative challenge that treating Mr. 
Turk would present. 
Second, the potential for a delay in the BOP providing Mr. Turk’s required 
medical treatment because of the need to obtain administrative approval for the non-
formulary treatment. 
The lack of treatment, or a material delay in receiving the needed treatment, 
would have seriously adverse effects on Mr. Turk.  As Dr. Truong stated in his report, 
“Without such treatment, [Mr. Turk] would have muscle spasm resulting in pain.” 
 
 
Case 8:22-cr-00061-JLS     Document 36     Filed 11/11/22     Page 3 of 4   Page ID #:234

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
4 
 
 
Similarly, Mr. Turk’s treating providers at Kaiser Permanente advised: 
“Without the injections, he would ultimately regress and return to having severe 
pain and dystonic movements of the neck. . . .  These abnormal movements of 
the neck cause severe increased pain and force his head into awkward 
positions.” 
(Id., Exh E). 
Third, there are no BOP Level Care Level 3 or 4 facilities in our region, or even 
anywhere close.  See https://www.bop.gov/locations/list.jsp (the closest medical 
facility to Los Angeles appears to be Texas; bed space availability is unclear).  
Therefore, if incarcerated, Mr. Turk would suffer the additional effect of social 
isolation from his family.  Mr. Turk’s wife of more than 50 years, Esther Turk, 
continues to recover from open-heart surgery, and her health remains in fragile.  
Therefore, this would be a particularly hard time for the Turks to be separated. 
DATED:  November 11, 2022 
LAW OFFICES OF EVAN A. JENNESS 
 
 
 
 
By: 
/s/ Evan A. Jenness 
 
EVAN A. JENNESS 
 
Counsel for Defendant  
BERNARD TURK 
 
 
Case 8:22-cr-00061-JLS     Document 36     Filed 11/11/22     Page 4 of 4   Page ID #:235

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.851721.36.0.pdf

Size

111,407 bytes

SHA-256

56520eaf5237c454da7fe587f1ef84bab755606a0e023806fed7ac6c93e9152b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.851721.36.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)