Rehashing an old issue:
wserra wrote:Virtually every convicted TP raises this issue on appeal. Anybody know of anyone other than Cheek and Ratzlaf who won?
On the LH website, and in his appellate brief, Hendrickson relies heavily on US v. Bass:
Hendrickson's brief wrote:In U.S. v. Bass, 784 F.2d 1282 (5th Cir. 1986), the Fifth Circuit reversed a false tax filing conviction where the district court’s instruction to the jury invaded the jury’s role as finder of fact and effectively instructed the jury to find, as a matter of law, that the defendant was an “employee” as defined by the Internal Revenue Code. Like the defendant in Bass, here Mr. Hendrickson objected to the Judge Rosen’s instructions and requested that Judge Rosen instruct the jury on sections 3401 and 3121 by allowing the jury to read the actual, literal language of these statutes.
Judge Rosen’s instruction actively misrepresented the literal language of the statutes that Mr. Hendrickson relied on in filing all ten forms under indictment. Judge Rosen’s instruction also directly contradicted Mr. Hendrickson’s testimony and did not allow the jury to objectively evaluate Mr. Hendrickson’s state of mind.
The instruction to which Hendrickson is objecting was as follows:
Judge Rosen wrote:As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term “employee” means any individual who performs services and who has a legal employer-employee relationship with the person for whom he performs these services.
26 U.S.C. §3121(d)(2); 26 U.S.C. §3401(c).
Which is entirely correct, despite Hendrickson's claims to the contrary.
The instruction in the
Bass case was quite different:
U.S. v. Bass wrote:Now in order to prove a violation of 26 United States Code, 7205, the Government must prove four things. First, the Defendant was required to complete and file the Internal Revenue Service form W-4 with his employer, certifying certain information as to entitlement [to] withholding tax allowances; and two, that the Defendant did complete and file such a W-4 form; and three, that the information supplied by the Defendant to his employer as required under the W-4 forms was false or fraudulent as charged; and four, that the Defendant's conduct in supplying false or fraudulent information to his employer was done willfully.
[....]
You are instructed that as a matter of law the Defendant in this case was an employee of Sabine Industries and B & B Insulation Company and ANCO Insulation, Incorporated for the years 1980 [sic], and Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation for '81 and '82 and for Jacob Weese Constructors, Incorporated for the year 1982.
The difference between the language in Bass and the language in Hendrickson is quite obvious, because Judge Rosen never instructed the jury that Hendrickson was an employee; the judge just told the jury the correct definition of "employee," which the jury needed in order to determine whether the filings by Hendrickson were false. (Because Hendrickson was charged with filing false documents, and not income tax evasion, it was necessary for the government to prove that the Forms 4852 filed by Hendrickson were false and that Hendrickson did receive "wages.")
Hendrickon's claim that "Judge Rosen’s instruction also directly contradicted Mr. Hendrickson’s testimony" is quite silly in this context, because of course Judge Rosen's instructions contradicted Hendrickson's testimony,
because Hendrickson is wrong about the law.
Hendrickson is entitled to claim that he misunderstood the law, but he's not entitled to exclude correct statements of the law from the jury.
