United States v. Anita Green -Northern District of Ohio at Toledo

Circuit 6Feb 13, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 64/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed in Part

Two defendants, Anita Green and her daughter Amanda Hovanec, challenged their federal sentences arising from a conspiracy to import and use the animal tranquilizer etorphine to murder Hovanec’s husband. The Sixth Circuit affirmed both prison sentences but reversed and remanded the district court’s restitution order against Green, holding that purely psychological injuries are not ‘bodily injury’ under 18 U.S.C. § 3663 unless the mental harm produces physical symptoms.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether the term “bodily injury” in 18 U.S.C. § 3663(b)(2) (Victim and Witness Protection Act) encompasses purely mental/psychological harm unaccompanied by physical manifestations.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 4Circuit 6(this circuit)Circuit 8Circuit 9

‘Bodily injury’ excludes purely psychological harm; emotional harm must manifest in physical symptoms to qualify.

Circuit 7Circuit 10

‘Bodily injury’ can include psychological or emotional harm even without physical manifestation (no plain-error to award restitution).

Conflict Summary

Several circuits (4th, 6th, 8th, 9th) hold that ‘bodily injury’ is limited to physical or corporeal harm (although the 6th allows recovery when the mental distress produces physical symptoms). By contrast, the 7th and 10th Circuits have upheld restitution awards for purely psychological harm, concluding it was not plain error (and thus permissible) to treat mental injury alone as ‘bodily injury.’

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Anita Green; Amanda Hovanec
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Amy Lee Copeland (Rouse + Copeland LLC) for Green; Benjamin S. Morrell (Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP) for Hovanec
Appellee:Laura McMullen Ford, United States Attorney’s Office (Cleveland, OH)