MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 23, 2018, following a five-week trial, a jury convicted defendant Dr. Michael Belfiore (“Belfiore”) of twenty-six counts of illegal distribution of oxycodone and two counts of distribution of oxycodone causing the death of an individual. (ECF No. 198.) Belfiore was a doctor of osteopathic medicine with a practice in Merrick, New York. Belfiore was initially charged with illegal distribution of oxycodone to undercover officer James Marinucci, whom Belfiore knew as “James Burke” (“Burke”). (Apr. 18, 2018 Trial Tr. at 51.) At trial, the government presented evidence, in the form of undercover surveillance videos, that captured six occasions during which Belfiore provided oxycodone to Burke. The government argued that Belfiore prescribed the oxycodone without first ensuring that there was a legitimate medical purpose for the prescriptions. In connection with these allegations, the government offered records from Burke’s medical files which it asserted contained false information inserted by Belfiore to justify the prescriptions. In addition, the government submitted evidence regarding Belfiore’s treatment of two other patients, Edward Martin (“Martin”) and John Ubaghs (“Ubaghs”), which the government argued demonstrated that Belfiore’s oxycodone prescriptions for both patients were without legitimate medical purpose and caused their deaths. Now pending before the Court is Belfiore’s motion to set aside the verdict, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF Nos. 215, 250.) In his motion, Belfiore principally argues that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, Thomas F. Liotti (“Liotti”), during plea negotiations in that Liotti advised him to reject the plea offer from the government and proceed to trial. Specifically, Belfiore contends that, but for Liotti’s unreasonable advice, he would have pled guilty to a one-count Information, pursuant to the plea agreement offered by the government. Belfiore further claims that Liotti was ineffective during the course of the trial when: (1) he pursued a defense involving “Big Pharma”; (2) he pursued an entrapment defense; (3) he failed to request a jury charge on actual and proximate cause; and (4) he based trial decisions on the advice he received from a psychic. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Belfiore’s motion. With respect to the plea negotiations, the Court concludes that Liotti did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel. Belfiore was aware of the plea offers, the strength of the government’s case, the weaknesses in his defenses, and the large disparity between his potential sentence after a guilty plea to one count and his potential sentence after trial, including the mandatory minimum of 20 years if convicted by a jury of causing the death of a patient, Although Liotti may have been overly optimistic in assessing the likelihood of an acquittal on all charges, his advice that Belfiore did not need to accept the plea was not unreasonable, especially in light of Belfiore’s steadfast denial of guilt and strong desire to go to trial. In any event, assuming arguendo that the advice was unreasonable, the Court finds that Belfiore has suffered no prejudice. Specifically, after conducting an evidentiary hearing on this issue and carefully considering all of the evidence (including assessing the demeanor and credibility of Belfiore during his testimony at trial and the Rule 33 evidentiary hearing), the Court finds that there is no realistic probability that Belfiore would have accepted the government’s plea offer and pled guilty even if Liotti had advised him (as his prior attorney did) that the government’s evidence was overwhelming and Belfiore should take the plea. Even though Belfiore was taking preliminary steps to plead guilty before retaining Liotti, it is abundantly clear that Belfiore was not comfortable doing so. He left the government’s plea offer on the table for nine months, and never reached the point where he stated he would accept it or that he would be able to allocute to the crime. Although Belfiore claimed that the long delay was a result of him trying to wind down his medical practice, the Court does not find that explanation credible. Instead, his demeanor and statements throughout this criminal case (including his Grand Jury testimony, trial testimony, hearing testimony, and statements on Facebook and to the media) overwhelmingly demonstrate that Belfiore did not want to lose his medical practice, did not want to go to jail, adamantly denied that he had done anything wrong, and desperately wanted to go to trial. Belfiore’s post-trial efforts to downplay those thoughts and feelings, or to attribute them to Liotti’s erroneous advice, are entirely lacking in credibility. Having spent hours observing Belfiore during his testimony and the trial as a whole, it is clear to the Court that Belfiore’s deep-rooted opinions about what he viewed as a wrongful prosecution may have been shared by Liotti, but they were not created or magnified by Liotti; rather, Liotti was willing to provide an avenue for Belfiore to pursue a course of action that Belfiore strongly wished to follow — that is, fight the charges and proclaim to the jury and the world his innocence, as is his absolute constitutional right to do. In fact, even after Belfiore fired Liotti and tried to persuade the Court that he would have pled guilty but for Liotti’s advice, Belfiore was still unable to admit wrongdoing at the evidentiary hearing to the extent that would be required for him to have pled guilty. Instead, Belfiore testified at the evidentiary hearing that, at the time he prescribed the oxycodone to his patients, he believed that it was for a legitimate medical purpose and that his falsification of medical records was more sloppiness than anything else. That testimony represents a barrier to a guilty plea because it would suggest that he prescribed the oxycodone in good faith, and such testimony only further confirms that, notwithstanding the great disparity in penalties between pleading guilty and going to trial, Belfiore would not have pled guilty if Liotti’s advice had been different. In short, to allow Belfiore to receive the benefit of the government’s plea by now claiming that he would have accepted the plea except for Liotti’s advice would provide an unjust windfall to an intransigent defendant as to whom (in the Court’s assessment) (1) there was no reasonable probability that the plea deal would have been reached prior to trial, and (2) there was the same lack of any likelihood that he would have been willing and able to actually admit wrongdoing even if he agreed to the plea offer. It is only now, having been told by a unanimous jury that he illegally distributed oxycodone and caused the death of two patients, along with the specter of at least 20 years’ imprisonment from his illegal conduct, that Belfiore claims (with no credibility) that he would have pled guilty but for Liotti’s advice, while at the same time continuing to have extreme difficulty admitting to his wrongdoing at this late stage. In the Court’s view, that contention is completely lacking in credibility. Accordingly, the ineffective assistance claim regarding the plea negotiations has no merit. Similarly, the ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to certain of Liotti’s decisions and actions during the trial also fail. The Court determined, in its discretion, that no evidentiary hearing on this portion of Belfiore’s motion was necessary because it was clear from presiding over the trial that Belfiore’s assertions of Liotti’s ineffectiveness had no merit and, in any event, there was no reasonable probability that those alleged deficiencies impacted the outcome of trial. First, the Court finds unpersuasive Belfiore’s attempt to second-guess Liotti’s use of the entrapment defense and his decision to cast blame on Big Pharma for deceiving doctors and the public about the full extent of oxycodone’s dangers as a treatment for pain. As a threshold matter, the Court emphasizes that these strategies were not the core defenses asserted by Liotti on behalf of Belfiore. Instead, Liotti formulated a viable defense that included the testimony of three expert witnesses who, in combination, supported Belfiore’s testimony that he prescribed the oxycodone with a legitimate medical purpose and did not cause the death of either Ubaghs or Martin. If the jury credited these three experts, Belfiore would have been acquitted of all counts. Moreover, Liotti’s decision to supplement that defense with an entrapment defense, as it related to Belfiore’s interactions with the undercover officer posing as a patient, was entirely reasonable given the devastating nature of those undercover videos. The fact that the entrapment defense opened the door to data being introduced by the government regarding Belfiore’s overall volume of prescribing oxycodone did not render this strategy constitutionally defective because Belfiore, as a pain doctor, never asserted that he was reluctant to prescribe oxycodone and, thus, the data was not inconsistent with his testimony. In addition, Liotti’s presentation of evidence regarding misleading statements by oxycodone manufacturers regarding the benefits and risks of oxycodone was a reasonable supplement to the overall defense that carried very little downside. Liotti presented these defenses in a competent manner in his jury addresses, cross-examination of government witnesses, and presentation of defense witnesses, including the expert testimony. Although the jury rejected those defenses, the Court (having presided over the trial) concludes that there is no basis to find any portion of those strategies to be constitutionally defective. In any event, even if Liotti did not mount the entrapment defense or the assault on Big Pharma, the outcome of the trial would have been exactly the same in the Court’s view, Second, although Belfiore faults Liotti for not requesting a jury instruction with respect to actual and proximate causation as it relates to the deaths of Martin and Ubaghs, Liotti’s failure to request such an instruction was not unreasonable because the Court’s instruction comported with Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent. For the same reason, Belfiore suffered no prejudice because, if Liotti made such a request, the Court would have denied that request. In addition, even if the instruction were given, the Court concludes that there was not a reasonable probability that the jury verdict would have been different. Finally, Belfiore contends that Liotti’s discussions with a psychic during the trial regarding how the trial was going resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular, Belfiore began consulting with the psychic on his own about the case, and eventually introduced Liotti to the psychic, but asserts (with support from the psychic) that Liotti then began consulting with the psychic on his own. Liotti insists that he only spoke to the psychic to placate his client and that it did not impact his trial strategy in any way. The Court need not resolve this dispute about Liotti’s motivation because, whether he spoke to the psychic to respect his client’s wishes or because he also developed his own curiosity regarding the psychic’s views, there is not a shred of evidence in the record — from Belfiore’s affidavit, the psychic’s affidavit, or any other source — that Liotti altered his defense strategy in any way during the trial based upon his discussions with the psychic. To the contrary, the psychic noted in his affidavit that he told Belfiore and Liotti that he was not in a position to assess the jury’s reaction to any particular argument and does not claim to have advocated any strategy. More importantly, it is manifestly clear from the record that the entirety of the defense strategy was developed by Liotti and Belfiore months before trial, was solidified long before Liotti spoke to the psychic, and such strategy remained consistent (along with Liotti’s style and approach) before and after the interactions with the psychic. Therefore, these interactions with the psychic by Belfiore and his lawyer during a trial were indisputably immaterial to Liotti’s performance and the outcome of the trial. In sum, for these reasons and those discussed in detail below, the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, as it relates to both the plea negotiations and trial, are without merit, and the Rule 33 motion is denied. I. BACKGROUND A. The Filing of the Complaint and Information On October 6, 2014, the government charged Belfiore on a Complaint with illegal distribution of oxycodone to an undercover officer known as James Burke, who posed as one of Belfiore’s patients. (ECF No. 1.) On January 7, 2015, the government provided Belfiore’s counsel at the time, Marc C. Gann (“Gann”), with a draft plea agreement. Under the agreement, Belfiore would plead guilty to one count of distribution of oxycodone and would face an advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 30-37 months’ imprisonment. (Jan. 7, 2015 Plea Agreement, ECF No. 227, Ex. A.) Under the agreement, there was no mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. (Id.) Gann advised Belfiore to take the plea. (Belfiore Aff. 3, ECF No. 215-1.) On May 15, 2015, Belfiore appeared for a conference before the Honorable Joanna Seybert. At that conference, Belfiore waived indictment and agreed to the filing of an Information, charging him with one count of illegal distribution of oxycodone. A status conference or potential guilty plea hearing was scheduled for July 17, 2015. (ECF Nos. 14-16.) In status conferences held thereafter, the parties sought a series of adjournments so that Belfiore could “wind[] down his medical practice” before he pled guilty to the government’s plea offer. (July 24, 2015 Tr. at 2.) The issue of winding down his practice had also been the basis of several adjournments between the filing of the Complaint and the Information. (See, e.g., Jan. 30, 2015 Tr. at 2-3; Mar. 27, 2015 Tr. at 2-3.) On or around November 4, 2015, Gann was relieved as counsel and replaced by Liotti. At a conference before Judge Seybert on November 4, 2015, the government stated, in the presence of Belfiore, that it “agreed to extend the plea offer for 60 days.” (Nov. 4, 2015 Tr. at 3.) Liotti then informed the Court by letter dated January 8, 2016 that he was “still investigating the ramifications of a plea versus pre-trial motions and a trial” and was working with Belfiore’s counsel in an Office of Professional Medical Conduct (“OPMC”) matter, as well as Belfiore’s counsel in a state civil matter. (ECF No. 21.) On February 22, 2016, the parties appeared again before Judge Seybert. The government informed the Court that Belfiore “[did] not wish to enter a guilty plea or resolve this case short of trial.” (Feb. 22, 2016 Tr. at 3.) Liotti further explained that he “tried to look at the possibility” of Belfiore pleading guilty, but Belfiore decided that he could not do so, “because in all likelihood he would lose his license and ability to practice his profession” after a plea. (Id. at 3-4.) At the conference, Judge Seybert questioned Belfiore on whether he understood the consequences of rejecting the plea offer, and he confirmed that he did. (Id. at 5.) The government then outlined the evidence that it had against Belfiore, including the video recordings that showed Belfiore writing oxycodone prescriptions for Burke, even though he did not appear to have any injury. (Id. at 5.) The government also explained that it would investigate Belfiore’s prescription practices and charge Belfiore with additional illegal distributions of oxycodone if the circumstances indicated more criminal activity. (Id. at 7.) After acknowledging that trial would be a “difficult road,” Liotti requested that Belfiore have an opportunity to testify before the Grand Jury. (Id. at 4-5.) On May 13, 2016, after Judge Seybert recused herself, this case was re-assigned to the undersigned. B. Belfiore’s Grand Jury Testimony Belfiore testified before the Grand Jury on three occasions: May 12, 2016, June 30, 2016, and August 4, 2016. During his Grand Jury testimony, Belfiore claimed that he wrote the oxycodone prescriptions for Burke because Burke was “very persuasive” (June 30, 2016 Grand Jury Tr. at 43-44), but ultimately discharged Burke when it became apparent to Belfiore that Burke was “doctor shopping” (id. at 142-43). With respect to Martin, one of the patients who was alleged to have died from Belfiore’s oxycodone prescriptions, Belfiore testified that, despite the fact that he knew that Martin was an alcoholic, he issued him an oxycodone prescription. (Aug. 4, 2016 Grand Jury Tr. at 41-42.) Belfiore explained that he also gave him referrals to addiction treatment specialists. (Id. at 38-39.) He further placed the blame for Martin’s death on Martin himself. (Id. at 35.) With respect to Ubaghs, the other patient who died, Belfiore was asked about his drug tests that indicated to Belfiore that he was using marijuana, as well as prescriptions that Belfiore did not prescribe. Belfiore responded that he went “over each drug test” with his patients and that he wrote the prescriptions for a “legitimate medical purpose.” (Id. at 69-70; see also id. at 25 (claiming that he issued the prescriptions for a legitimate medical purpose).) C. The Superseding Indictments On August 25, 2016, the Grand Jury issued a Superseding Indictment that replaced the Information. (ECF No. 41.) While the Information against Belfiore charged one count of distribution of oxycodone, the Superseding Indictment charged Belfiore with twenty-nine counts of distribution of oxycodone to multiple patients. (Id.) At this point, the government informed Liotti that the one-count plea offer was still open. (March 27, 2015 Tr. at 7; see also Sept. 8, 2017 Resp. to Def.’s Second Omnibus Mot. at 7 & n.9, ECF No. 87.) The government further informed Liotti that, if Belfiore rejected the plea offer, it would present counts against Belfiore for the deaths of Martin and Ubaghs, and such counts carried mandatory minimum sentences. (Aug. 14, 2017 Second Omnibus Mot. at 4-5, ECF No. 82.) On June 2, 2017, the government filed a letter indicating that it would present Belfiore’s case to a new Grand Jury panel to address this Court’s concern that the language of the Superseding Indictment failed to explicitly state that the prescriptions were not for a legitimate medical purpose. (ECF No. 76; see also May 10, 2017 Tr. at 40-43.) The Court subsequently dismissed the Superseding Indictment without prejudice. In the Second Superseding Indictment filed June 28, 2017, the Grand Jury charged Belfiore with twenty-six counts of distribution of oxycodone, and two counts of distribution of oxycodone causing the death of an individual, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). (ECF No. 80.) Because of the two counts involving the deaths of Martin and Ubaghs, Belfiore now faced a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 20 years to life if convicted on either of those counts. D. Belfiore’s Media Appearances Following the filing of the Superseding Indictment in August 2016, Belfiore made several media appearances. For example, on December 18, 2017, Belfiore appeared on the television show Crime Watch Daily, in which he stated that he could not “plead guilty to something that [he] didn’t do.” (ECF No. 227, Ex. K, Crime Watch Daily Episodes, Part 3, at 6:22-6:30.) He also appeared twice on News 12, once after the Superseding Indictment was returned and once after the Second Superseding Indictment was returned, stating that he was “inflamed” and “angry” because he could not trust the government, and that he “never” wrote prescriptions “recklessly.” (ECF No. 227, Ex. K, News 12 Report.) E. Belfiore’s Trial Belfiore’s trial began on April 18, 2018. (ECF No. 158.) The government presented videotaped recordings that showed Belfiore prescribe Burke 90 30-milligram oxycodone pills on six different occasions. (April 18, 2018 Trial Tr. at 51.) This 30-milligram dosage was the “highest strength available for short acting oxycodone,” according to the government’s expert, Dr. Seth Waldman. (Apr. 23, 2018 Trial Tr. at 354.) Dr. Waldman reviewed the medical files of, inter alia, Burke, Ubaghs, Martin, and John Ortega, another patient. He testified that the medical files for Belfiore’s patients contained red flags, such as alcohol abuse, illegal drug use, and a lack of medical documentation of actual injury. (See, e.g., Apr. 23, 2018 Trial Tr. at 356-57, 420.) For example, Ortega’s medical file indicated that he had received multiple prescriptions of oxycodone from Belfiore, even though he had repeatedly tested positive for illegal drugs.1 (Apr. 24, 2018 Trial Tr. at 483-84, 490.) With respect to Burke, Dr. Waldman noted that Belfiore did not actually perform a physical examination of Burke, and Burke presented no X-ray or MRI to indicate whether he had suffered an injury requiring pain medication. (Id. at 435-36.) Burke also told Belfiore that he was diverting the oxycodone to his “girlfriend,” known to Belfiore as Michele Doyle, who in reality was another undercover officer. (Id. at 420-21.) Despite this information, Belfiore agreed to meet with Burke’s “girlfriend.” (Apr. 23, 2018 Trial Tr. at 295.) The recordings also showed that Belfiore created false entries in Burke’s medical file by including information from Burke that Burke never actually conveyed. For example, Dr. Waldman testified that notations in Burke’s medical files regarding his alleged pain level, back spasm, and heart murmur did not reflect what actually occurred in the videos. (Id. at 426-29.) Given these circumstances, Dr. Waldman concluded that the prescriptions captured on video were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose. (Id. at 421-22, 431.) With respect to Martin, the evidence demonstrated that Belfiore prescribed him 248 30-milligram oxycodone pills over the course of January and February 2013. (April 24, 2018 Trial Tr. at 577-78; Gov. Opp’n at 11, ECF No. 227.) Martin was pronounced dead a few days after Belfiore wrote him an oxycodone prescription. (Apr. 26, 2018 Trial Tr. at 963; Apr. 30, 2018 Trial Tr. at 1007-10; see also Gov. Exs. 308A, 3500-DB1.) His body was found in bed with a bottle of prescription oxycodone pills that were issued by Belfiore, and inside a drawer next to the bed was a straw with oxycodone residue. (Apr. 26, 2018 Trial Tr. at 889; Apr. 30, 2018 Trial Tr. at 1016; Gov. Exs. 308E, 3500-DB2, S7.) With respect to Ubaghs, Belfiore wrote him prescriptions for 5,940 oxycodone pills over the course of three years, including 240 30-milligram oxycodone pills in the span of four days. (Apr. 30, 2018 Trial Tr. at 1161; May 3, 2018 Trial Tr. at 1688.) According to Belfiore’s medical files, Ubaghs’s drug tests revealed marijuana use, as well as the use of controlled substances that Belfiore did not prescribe. (Apr. 24, 2018 Trial Tr. at 635-36, 640, 650.) They also demonstrated that Ubaghs tested negative for other controlled substances that Belfiore did prescribe, such as Clonazepam and oxycodone, indicating that he was not taking his medication as directed. (Id. at 637, 650.) The primary defense asserted by Belfiore was that all of the oxycodone that he prescribed to his patients — including the prescriptions to the undercover officer, Martin, and Ubaghs — were done in good faith and for a legitimate medical purpose. Moreover, as an alternative argument, he contended that there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the oxycodone he prescribed caused the death of either Martin or Ubaghs. Furthermore, with respect to the undercover officer, Belfiore asserted that he was entrapped by the government, in that Burke lied to him and pressured him to prescribe him oxycodone. To support these defenses, in addition to testifying on his own behalf, Belfiore presented the expert testimony of three medical professionals, Dr. Dean Olsen, Dr. Richard Blum, and Dr. Mark Taff. Dr. Olsen, an experienced emergency room physician at Nassau University Medical Center, testified that based upon his review of Belfiore’s medical files for the patients at issue in the case, he concluded that Belfiore “did in fact have a legitimate medical purpose” (May 8, 2018 Trial Tr. at 1827), and “had in good faith tried to alleviate the patient’s suffering with medication that was prescribed” (id. at 1829). Dr. Blum opined that Martin actually died from pulmonary edema, bronchopneumonia, and congestive heart failure. (May 9, 2018 Trial Tr. at 1948-49.) He also testified that the cause of death for Ubaghs was sudden cardiac death, not a narcotic-induced fatality. (Id. at 1967.) Dr. Taff testified that Martin’s cause of death was lung disease and heart disease. (May 10, 2018 Trial Tr. at 2059.) In addition, he stated that Ubaghs’s death could not be determined due to his heart disease and the presence of drugs in his system. (Id. at 2073-74.) With respect to entrapment, Belfiore testified on his own behalf and claimed that he would not have prescribed the medication to Burke had Burke not convinced him that he needed it for his pain. (May 2, 2018 Trial Tr. at 1481-82.) To refute Belfiore’s entrapment defense, the government produced evidence that Belfiore had written 6,651 other oxycodone prescriptions to patients, 4,588 of which were for 30-milligram oxycodone pills, in order to demonstrate that Belfiore was predisposed to prescribe oxycodone. (Apr. 30, 2018 Trial Tr. at 1171.) On May 23, 2018, the jury returned a verdict, finding Belfiore guilty of all charges. (ECF No. 198.) After the trial, Belfiore, through Liotti, requested two extensions to file his motion for a judgment of acquittal, pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (ECF Nos. 201, 204.) Thereafter, on June 20, 2018, Bruce A. Barket and Donna Aldea filed notices of appearance in this case on behalf of Belfiore. (ECF Nos. 205-06.) By letter dated June 25,2018, Liotti informed the Court that he was aware that he had been replaced and was completing Belfiore’s Rule 29 motion, but not filing it. (ECF No. 208.) On October 16, 2018, Belfiore, represented by his new counsel, filed a motion to set aside the verdict, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Def.’s Mem., ECF No. 215.) In his motion, Belfiore stated that the evidence was “absolutely overwhelming,” such that “a reasonably competent attorney [would] counsel his client that he should take the plea offer to a single count of distribution in full satisfaction of all the charges.” (Id. at 9.) Belfiore also highlights Liotti’s continued belief that he “won this case on the law and the facts.” (Id. at 12 (quoting June 21, 2018 Ltr. at 1).) On November 1, 2018, Liotti filed an affidavit in connection with Belfiore’s motion. (Liotti Aff., ECF No. 217.) The government filed its response to Belfiore’s motion on January 11, 2019 (Gov. Opp’n, ECF No. 227), to which Belfiore replied on February 8, 2019 (Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 231). Belfiore’s prior counsel, Marc Gann, filed an affidavit in support of Belfiore’s motion on March 26, 2019. (Gann Aff., ECF No. 234.) F. Affidavits in Support of the Rule 33 Motion Belfiore submitted an affidavit with his Rule 33 motion on October 16, 2018. He stated that, prior to retaining Liotti, Gann had advised him “to accept a plea bargain where [his] sentence range was from no prison up to 20 years.” (Belfiore Aff. 3). According to the affidavit, Gann warned him that he would “face substantially more” prison time if he was convicted at trial, and Gann characterized the evidence against Belfiore as “overwhelming.” (Id.) With respect to Liotti, Belfiore stated, inter alia, the following: At the first meeting, Mr. Liotti urged me to fire Mr. Gann, hire him and take the case to trial. He disparaged Mr. Gann by saying things like “all attorneys like Gann do is settle.” He talked about suing Mr. Gann on my behalf because “he didn’t do anything.” Mr. Liotti[] assured me that he would not even accept the case unless he believed there was at least a 30 percent chance I would be acquitted. Without having the benefit of reviewing the proof, [or] speaking to Mr. Gann, Mr. Liotti urged me to hire him and take the case to trial. At the time I was faced with prison, the loss of my medical license and financial ruin. Mr. Liotti gave me hope that I could avoid all of that, if I hired him and went to trial. Based on his confidence, I hired Mr. Liotti and fired Marc Gann. Sometime after I hired Mr. Liotti the prosecutors again offered a plea bargain and indicated that if I did not accept the offer I would be indicted on counts alleging that two of my patients died as a result of my conduct. I was concerned about the prospect of facing a trial with counts that carried mandatory minimum sentences. Mr. Liotti, however, told me that “there is no reason to take a plea.” He assured me “we can win this” and made statements like “I can do this.” (Id.
5-9.) Belfiore also referred to a psychic that he and Liotti consulted. (Id.
