Snipes loses appellate case

[Dr. Caligari]

I see a lot of problems with this story, and I suspect the story will change once it is questioned and compared with the recollections of other jurors.

I don't think it will even get that far, because Rule 606 (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence makes jurors' statements about their deliberations inadmissible.

[Joey Smith]

That is one of those appellate arguments that will give Snipes hope in prison. It will be false hope, but maybe it will be the hope he needs to get through the first couple of weeks. Plus, I'm sure this attorneys can bill him another million for the challenge based on that "evidence".

[The Operative]

Actor Wesley Snipes asks to remain free

[LPC]

Snipes has reportedly filed a petition for cert to the Supreme Court.

A search of the docket shows that he was twice granted an extension of time in which to file the petition and the second extension was to 2/26/2011 (See No. 10A630). However, there's not yet a docket entry for the actual petition, which would have had to have been filed by last Friday (unless the Supreme Court has a rule like the tax rule that allows you to file on the next following business day when a deadline falls on a weekend or holiday).

[jcolvin2]

The petition, which is dated February 28, 2011:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/wts-ce ... 022811.pdf

[Dr. Caligari]

Actually a well-written Petition, raising nonfrivolous issues (but nonetheless unlikely to be granted).

[jg]

So, if the Supreme court were to decide that venue actually was not properly decided for the trial that was held, does that mean new indictments for the felony charges that had not guilty decisions in the improper venue could be tried in (what may be decided will be) the proper venue?

The petition seems to argue that an indictment in the improper venue is not a valid indictment. If the indictment was not valid, would it not be void thereby allowing a future indictment (even for the charges for which Snipes was acquitted)?

Or, does the assertion that venue was improper for the misdemeanor convictions somehow not include the felony acquittals?
If not, then how not?

In my layman's understanding, the assertion of the right to a proper determination of venue would have to apply equally to the felony convictions as well. But, perhaps I do not understand the interaction with double jeopardy or other issues; so any assistance to satisfy my curiousity would be appreciated.

[Dr. Caligari]

(a) The venue issue, as I understand it, applies only to the misdemeanor counts. Venue for failure to file lies only where the defendant resides (because by definition, the defendant didn't "do" anything; the statute punishes inaction); venue for the felony counts was proper anywhere the defendant did any act to evade his taxes, and, IIRC, I don't think Snipes disputed that there was venue in Florida for the felony counts (I could be wrong about that).

(b) Since Snipes was acquitted at trial on the felony counts, double jeopardy would bar a re-trial of them.

[LPC]

The petition, which is dated February 28, 2011:

It's now docketed as No. 10-1075.

And the petition was timely, even though due on 2/26, because of Supreme Court Rule 30.1:

1. In the computation of any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, by order of the Court, or by an applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period begins to run is not included. The last day of the period shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, federal legal holiday listed in 5 U. S. C. § 6103, or day on which the Court building is closed by order of the Court or the Chief Justice, in which event the period shall extend until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, federal legal holiday, or day on which the Court building is closed.

[Gregg]

IIRC, all of the documents he filed with the IRS he claimed a Florida address, and I'd think that he did that on purpose, as Florida has no state income tax and the other two choices he could plausibly claim are NY and California, which both have pretty high state income tax. And he actually is from Florida, he grew up there and I think he spends a lot of time there. So, the question I ask is if he is now saying he doesn't live in Florida, is he going to go back all the years he didn't pay state tax anywhere else and pay them?

[LPC]

IIRC, all of the documents he filed with the IRS he claimed a Florida address, and I'd think that he did that on purpose, as Florida has no state income tax and the other two choices he could plausibly claim are NY and California, which both have pretty high state income tax.

Ya think?

During his criminal trial, he claimed to be a resident of New York, or maybe California, which both have relatively high income taxes. And yet he never produced any income tax return in which he admitted to be a resident of one of those states.

Meanwhile, he signed several documents claiming to be a resident of Florida, and each of those documents would have had the effect of reducing his tax liabilities.

Is there a pattern here?

Is there a reason why a jury might have decided to let him stew in his own juices? (The modern equivalent of "hoisted by his own petard.")

I think that juries know when they're being diddled, and I think that they often figure out how to make sure that the diddler is the one who gets diddled. It's what prosecutors call "justice" and defense lawyers call "bias" or "against the weight of the evidence."

[Gregg]

Thanks Dan, I thought I might be making a racial stereotype by saying maybe the Florida residence claim was a tax influenced conscience choice he made (BTW, something like 70% of all major league baseball players are legally Florida residents, who'd a thunk it?)

But given that every document he ever submitted to anybody about taxes listed him as living in Florida, just exactly why does he think when tax agencies had any questions for him they'd ask them anywhere else? He would have a damn good argument on the venue thing if California was prosecuting him for tax evasion, or the IRS was indicting him in LA, his advisers (the sane ones before he went of the reservation) did a pretty good job of establishing him as a Florida resident, and as I mentioned he has a much better case it challenged on it than quite a few other wealthy celebrities who claim it. He has family there, grew up there etc... as opposed to Madonna (at one time at least legally a Florida resident) who had a condo in South Beach where she would go for vacations and to file her taxes.

But, well, we're just picking on him. Oh wouldn't it be sweet if NY started sending him tax bills or even charged him with tax evasion now? So he avoided a few years in Federal prison in order to go to Attica instead?

[Demosthenes]

The Supreme Court has spoken: Cert denied.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I suppose that means he's actually behind bars for a while.

[Demosthenes]

I suppose that means he's actually behind bars for a while.

7/19/2013

[Famspear]

Fox News has a story on it:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... test=faces