Latest in Hendrickson's criminal trial

[Demosthenes]

A jury isn't going to understand the point made by the prosecutor.

[wserra]

if he chooses not to testify (i.e., he chooses "not to Cheek"), what are his chances, realistically?

As I see it, only the lowest common denominator - you always have some shot with a jury, God bless 'em. And I agree, I can't see how a Cheek defense can succeed (past the LCD) if the defendant does not testify.

I cannot seek him going with a Cheek here.

When the judge won't let him argue law to the jury, what else will he have?

[wserra]

A jury isn't going to understand the point made by the prosecutor.

Sometimes my only shot at a win was the government tendency to overtry its case.

[webhick]

A jury isn't going to understand the point made by the prosecutor.

Brain isn't really working right now. What is the point being made by the prosecutor (aside from the fact that Hendrickson should be found guilty)?

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think juries in tax cases are loathe to let individuals game the system that they have to live under. With this submission, they're going to paint Hendrickson as not only a tax-cheat but a career criminal.

If he wasn't such a relentless self-promoter he might find one or two sympathetic jurors who would put up a few hours worth of resistance. But if they get to introduce the number of people who have been his victims I give them only one pot of coffee to reach a verdict.

Anyone seen a witness list yet?

[Imalawman]

A jury isn't going to understand the point made by the prosecutor.

Why do you say that?

[Demosthenes]

A jury isn't going to understand the point made by the prosecutor.

Why do you say that?

The jury will totally get the bomb evidence and will interpret that as: "Pete is an asshole who hates the gov. His tax scheme is just a new incarnation of his bomb scheme." Juries dig simple, and it's hard to beat the emotional response the gov will get from the bomb history.

The jury will hear his testimony from the Scarborough trial and will have no idea what point the prosecutor is making. In fact, focusing on the nuance of Pete's words could backfire. When the gov starts focusing on Pete's belief of what "wages" mean or whether or not he thinks taxes are Constitutional, they will start focusing the jury on the words of the law, rather than the sincerity of his beliefs. Way too cerebral (lawyer-like) for a juror. Bottom line, if the prosecutors start treating Pete's writings as those of an expert who changed his mind, all the jury will hear is that Pete is an expert. And if either side manages to get to jury to focus on the nuance of underlying tax laws, it's anyone's game how they'll react.

This should be a really simple case.

1) Pete had income for the years in question (bare bone facts)
2) Pete filed false forms with the IRS (bare bone facts)
3) Pete lost in civil court (he had notice his scheme didn't work)
4) Pete lost in appellate court (further hammering of the notice issue)
5) Pete hates the gov so much he sent them a bomb (his intent stinks to high heaven)
6) Examples of Pete's more recent writings (Pete still hates the gov)

[Dezcad]

This should be a really simple case.

1) Pete had income for the years in question (bare bone facts)
2) Pete filed false forms with the IRS (bare bone facts)
3) Pete lost in civil court (he had notice his scheme didn't work)
4) Pete lost in appellate court (further hammering of the notice issue)
5) Pete hates the gov so much he sent them a bomb (his intent stinks to high heaven)
6) Examples of Pete's more recent writings (Pete still hates the gov)

I agree that this should be made into a simple case. I do, however, think that Points 3 and 4 could be exploited by defense counsel. The false documents and returns in questions (2000 through 2006) were filed BEFORE Pete lost in civil court (May 2007) and in appellate court (2008) so those cases could not have provided Notice to Pete AT THE TIME he filed those documents and returns. Therefore, those cases could not have put Pete on notice that his theories were wrong. There are better ways to show he knew that they were false.

[Demosthenes]

I agree that this should be made into a simple case. I do, however, think that Points 3 and 4 could be exploited by defense counsel. The false documents and returns in questions (2000 through 2006) were filed BEFORE Pete lost in civil court (May 2007) and in appellate court (2008) so those cases could not have provided Notice to Pete AT THE TIME he filed those documents and returns. Therefore, those cases could not have put Pete on notice that his theories were wrong. There are better ways to show he knew that they were false.

In the very few government losses against tps (Kuglin, Banister, Whitey Harrell) the defendants all hammered on one key issue - the defendant had what he/she thought were legitimate concerns about his/her tax obligations. The IRS never answered those concerns.

The civil case against Pete closes that door in this case. It also explains why the gov delayed in indicting Pete. Pete was told he was wrong and has had ample time (3 years) to "get right" with the IRS since that telling. He hasn't.

[LPC]

This should be a really simple case.

1) Pete had income for the years in question (bare bone facts)
2) Pete filed false forms with the IRS (bare bone facts)
3) Pete lost in civil court (he had notice his scheme didn't work)
4) Pete lost in appellate court (further hammering of the notice issue)
5) Pete hates the gov so much he sent them a bomb (his intent stinks to high heaven)
6) Examples of Pete's more recent writings (Pete still hates the gov)

I would make it even simpler:

1. Authenticate and introduce into evidence the false Forms 1040 and 4852 that were filed.
2. Testimony from Pete's employer as to his employment and income, and confirming that he was sent Forms W-2 reporting his income.
3. Evidence of his previously pleading guilty to failing to file income tax returns.
4. Evidence of prior income tax returns showing that Pete had previously filed returns reporting his earned income.
5. Maybe (this is iffy) some evidence from Pete's writings from *before* the false returns were filed (such as the book or the website) if those writings can be used to show that Pete knew that the government expected him to report his earned income, and that reporting earned income was the "normal" way of filing, but only if this can be done without getting into the specifics of his theories as to why he should not file the "normal" way.

Items 1-4 should be enough to establish a case from which a jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Item 5 would be icing on the cake if it can be done without getting into the specifics of Pete's theories, and without confusing the jury as to what the government needs to prove. (I agree with Wes that less evidence can be more persuasive.)

The bombing, hating the government, civil cases, and other stuff I would hold back as material for cross-examination or rebuttal.

[Demosthenes]

This should be a really simple case.

1) Pete had income for the years in question (bare bone facts)
2) Pete filed false forms with the IRS (bare bone facts)
3) Pete lost in civil court (he had notice his scheme didn't work)
4) Pete lost in appellate court (further hammering of the notice issue)
5) Pete hates the gov so much he sent them a bomb (his intent stinks to high heaven)
6) Examples of Pete's more recent writings (Pete still hates the gov)

I would make it even simpler:

1. Authenticate and introduce into evidence the false Forms 1040 and 4852 that were filed.
2. Testimony from Pete's employer as to his employment and income, and confirming that he was sent Forms W-2 reporting his income.
3. Evidence of his previously pleading guilty to failing to file income tax returns.
4. Evidence of prior income tax returns showing that Pete had previously filed returns reporting his earned income.
5. Maybe (this is iffy) some evidence from Pete's writings from *before* the false returns were filed (such as the book or the website) if those writings can be used to show that Pete knew that the government expected him to report his earned income, and that reporting earned income was the "normal" way of filing, but only if this can be done without getting into the specifics of his theories as to why he should not file the "normal" way.

Items 1-4 should be enough to establish a case from which a jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Item 5 would be icing on the cake if it can be done without getting into the specifics of Pete's theories, and without confusing the jury as to what the government needs to prove. (I agree with Wes that less evidence can be more persuasive.)

The bombing, hating the government, civil cases, and other stuff I would hold back as material for cross-examination or rebuttal.

Works for me.