Sherry Peel Jackson CONVICTED IN 45 MINUTES

[Demosthenes]

Yikes, that's fast.

Sherry Peel Jackson Trial - Day One

Written by djahn
Monday, 29 October 2007

I just received a call and can convey some basic information.

The trial commenced around 9:30 with jury selection which lasted until shortly after noon. The trial then broke for lunch.

After Lunch the prosecution began calling its witnesses. They called three witnesses and then presumably rested their case. I'm told the three witnesses included an IRS agent that went through training in the same class as Sherry, a former partner in a CPA firm with Sherry and a Department of Justice Fraud Investigator.

A little after 4:00 p.m., Sherry took the stand and testified until the court adjourned at about 5:00 p.m.

At this pace, the trial will likely go to jury sometime tomorrow. I'll pass along more information as it becomes available.

David Jahn
http://www.triallogs.com/index.php?/con ... ew/243/38/

[Demosthenes]

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2007/10/she ... -with.html

Trial Update, Day 1 - October 29, 2007
Jury selection was completed after the fortunate candidates were vetted by a standard battery of questions designed to identify those most likely to have an informed opinion about this kind of case. IRS employees and their family members, anyone who had ever had an income tax problem, and radical members of any organization that supports the United States Constitution were not going to be allowed on this jury. The ideal juror was one who had never really thought about this subject much, and wasn't likely to either.

Opening statements were uneventful, except that defense attorney Larry Becraft was able to make his 20- to 25-minute opening remarks without objection, leading one observer to remark that he thought this trial was being guided by the hand of God.

That opinion was further bolstered by the prosecution's surprisingly brief presentation and the bland testimony of their three witnesses, none of which was damning and part of which was already admitted by the defense. Remember, the prosecution has to prove all three of the following elements in a "willful failure to file" case.

This is from the manual of the Tax Division of the Department of Justice, which is the instruction manual for US attorneys who actually prosecute tax law violations.

To establish the offense of failure to make (file) a return, the government must prove three essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Defendant was a person required to file a return;
2. Defendant failed to file at the time required by law; and,
3. The failure to file was willful.

The prosecution never tries to prove the first element, and they did not try to do so today. The prosecution rarely tries to prove the third element, and they did not try to do so today. Instead, the prosecution focuses on the first half of the second element, which is what they did today, and this is what the defense had already admitted willingly. But the second half of the second element, "at the time required by law," is never proved, and they did not try to do so today.

So out of the three required elements, the prosecution tried to prove half of one element, the part that Sherry Jackson herself has gladly admitted. The prosecution doesn't even try to prove guilt. And if one day they ever do try to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a "willful failure to file" case, the prosecutor has one more impossible hurdle in his way, that being the definition of willfulness. Here's how the US Supreme Court defined it in Cheek v. United States, 498 US 192 (1991):

Willfulness has been defined by the courts as a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty . . . . Willfulness is determined by a subjective standard, thus the defendant is not required to have been objectively reasonable in his misunderstanding of his legal duties or belief that he was in compliance with the law.

In other words, by law the defendant can be as wrong as a one-legged stool, as confused as a three-headed cat, and as innocent as a newborn baby.

This explains why Judge Orenda D. Evans' court is noncombative in this case. The government doesn't have a leg to stand on, and they know it.

The defense will continue tomorrow.

[Dezcad]

A longer article from the triallogs site:

TRUTH ATTACK -- SHERRY JACKSON TRIAL UPDATE
Written by djahn
Tuesday, 30 October 2007


GOVERNMENT COLLAPSES CASE – TRIAL SPEEDS AHEAD
October 29, 2007 ATLANTA, GA

Today, the trial of former IRS Revenue Agent and CPA, Sherry Peel Jackson commenced with the government charging ahead with its four count information of willful failure to file at the Richard B. Russell Federal Courthouse by eliminating a host of its estimated 17 witnesses down to only three and presenting then wrapping up its case before 3:30PM.

The Jury selection process took place at approximately 9:30AM and by around 12:40PM the pool of 35 prospective jurors were sorted by the respective counsel and the panel of 12 jurors and one alternate. The empanelled jury consists of white, black and Hispanic men and women.

The government called three witnesses to the stand to make its case. Debbie Fitzpatrick, an IRS Revenue Agent, hired at the same time and attended the same training classes as Sherry Jackson testified to the general aspects of job responsibilities and the training phases she had attended with Ms. Jackson.

Next on the stand was Ms. Marion Cameron, a shareholder in Cameron, Miles and Jackson, PC, a corporation formed after Ms. Jackson had landed a lucrative state contract involving the auditing of state-run day care centers. Ms. Cameron testified to the amounts of gross receipts earned by each shareholder.

The government’s third and final witness was John Sherritk, a fraud investigator with the DOJ. Mr. Sherritk, who was on the stand for a very short period of time and testified to the figures on checks issued to the corporation and other sources pertaining to the corporation in general and Ms. Jackson specifically.

By 3:45PM Sherry Jackson took the stand. Sherry introduced her background to the jury and Mr. Becraft was able to offer and admit one of Sherry Jackson’s approximate 33 exhibits to the record. Mr. Becraft offered the 1991 IRS Instruction Book as evidence and the government objected to it for no apparent } here {/url]
After a brief debate, the court asked that the defense readmit the Instruction Book with only the pertinent portions that the defense intended demonstrate to the jury that Sherry Jackson relied upon to form and reinforce her beliefs.

The court adjourned at 5:15PM and Sherry Jackson will resume her testimony Tuesday morning and according to Mr. Becraft, he believes that Sherry’s testimony will conclude before lunch and the government’s cross examination could be finished before the close of court on Tuesday.

“This case has moved forward incredibly fast.” said Larry Becraft, “however, Sherry has been stellar at making adjustments to the unexpected occurrence of being called to the stand two days earlier than anticipated.”

There are also some audioblogs here.

[Imalawman]

Boy, I hope that AUSAs aren't throwing these cases away. I'm worried about the brevity of the prosecutions case in chief.

[wserra]

Boy, I hope that AUSAs aren't throwing these cases away. I'm worried about the brevity of the prosecutions case in chief.

Brevity is usually good. Blandness, if it in fact existed as described in Demo's post, is bad.

[Demosthenes]

Consider the source of the information. When I was watching the Schiff trial, I'd get back to computer every evening and read on triallogs how the DOJ was screwing up and how Schiff had the jury wrapped around his little finger. What was posting had absolutely no basis in reality. The prosecution in that case did a brilliant job and the jury convicted Schiff and Neun on all counts.

[LPC]

Consider the source of the information.

Good point. The commentary on the trial is coming from people who write nonsense like this (from above):

To establish the offense of failure to make (file) a return, the government must prove three essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Defendant was a person required to file a return;
2. Defendant failed to file at the time required by law; and,
3. The failure to file was willful.

The prosecution never tries to prove the first element, and they did not try to do so today. The prosecution rarely tries to prove the third element, and they did not try to do so today. Instead, the prosecution focuses on the first half of the second element, which is what they did today, and this is what the defense had already admitted willingly. But the second half of the second element, "at the time required by law," is never proved, and they did not try to do so today.

I am quite sure that the first witness, who reportedly went through IRS training with Jackson, testified at some length about the training they received on (a) what is income and (b) who is required to file a return, which would be proof of the element of willfulness.

The fact that Yannone can't even recognize the purpose of the testimony speaks volumes about his own delusions.

[Demosthenes]

Motion filed by Becraft today about whether the judge can instruct the jury about "willful blindness."

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/jackson40.pdf

[Judge Roy Bean]

I smell appeal.

[ASITStands]

I smell appeal.

I smell acquittal. Willful failure to file is Larry Becraft's bread-and-butter. He's won more of those than any other to my knowledge. He believes, "If he cannot get a win on 'good faith,' he's not performed his best." He made a statement like that.

Obviously, at this point, I wish I had made the effort to go. I didn't because I thought it would be difficult to obtain a seat with all the nut-cases that might show up.

We the People, Southern put out those T-shirts, etc.

Might as well be prepared for another round of TP gloating.

[Demosthenes]

The verdict is in. Guilty.

[Imalawman]

The verdict is in. Guilty.

Sweetness. She deserves the years she will spend in the pokey.

[Cpt Banjo]

At last -- an intelligent jury.

[ASITStands]

The verdict is in. Guilty.

Surprised! I'll be interested in reading the transcripts.

I was wrong about acquittal, and the Judge is probably right about appeal.

[Nikki]

Is this an all-time record for the shortest TP trial on record?

If so, Ms. Jackson has just won a place in the Guiness book.

[AFTP]

So how much jail time?

[jg]

Motion filed by Becraft today about whether the judge can instruct the jury about "willful blindness."

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/jackson40.pdf

Was the jury instruction about willful blindness given to the jury ?

[LPC]

According to Mark Yannone, the case went to the jury at 4:15, and the verdict was returned at 5:20.

65 minutes is pretty fast.

[Demosthenes]

So how much jail time?

Sentencing won't happen for months.

[LPC]

And the paranoia begins. From Trialogs:

Makes you wonder why the prosecution rested its case so quickly. From what was said yesterday they barely presented a case

Obviously, the prosecution didn't really need to present a case, because the fix was in.