Saladino / Fuselier criminal trial 11/3/2009

[illiterati]

Why would the court not reject Cryer's arguments? My understanding is that judges will usually instruct the jury that the defier arguments are incorrect as a matter of law. Why would it be different in this case? I'm not familiar at all with the particulars of the Cryer case. Did the judge say to disregard the legitimacy of the argument and focus on the state of mind of the defendant, or did they actually allow the arguments to be presented to the jury?

[illiterati]

I have a feeling that I took something "Noah" said as fact, when that might not be the wisest course of action as the previous poster said the court rejected Cryer's arguments, which would be more in line with what I would consider reality.

[Quixote]

The only issue for the Jury to decide was...did Cryer believe what he said he believed?

No, the only issue for the jury to decide was if Cryer knew he had a legal requirement to file tax returns. If he had known he had to file, his delusions about federal tax law would have been irrelevant.

Whether his beliefs were correct or not was not an issue. Even if they were correct he still had to prove to the Jury he believed them.

Wrong. If his beliefs were correct, his alleged actions (or lack of action) would not have constituted a crime, so there would have been nothing for the jury to decide. The judge would have dismissed the charges.

[Famspear]

Cryer's arguments were good enough for the Government to drop the tax evasion charges the morning of the trial.

Wrong. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

That left only the failure to file charges for trial. At the trial the Court did not reject any of Cryer's arguments.

Wrong. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

The only issue for the Jury to decide was...did Cryer believe what he said he believed?.

Wrong again. The jury's job was to look at each element of the crime, and to decide whether the government proved its case on each element - beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury found Cryer not guilty.

Whether his beliefs were correct or not was not an issue.

That is actually correct, in a sense. Until the moment when the Court ruled, the question of whether his beliefs were correct WAS an "issue." Once the Court ruled, however, that issue was decided. The correctness or incorrectness of his beliefs was not an issue beyond that point. The jury was called upon to decide only whether the government proved its case -- on each element -- beyond a reasonable doubt.

[illiterati]

So Famspear, does that mean you're Mountain time zone? I think I understand, dammit, will someone spell it out for me so I don't feel like a douche-bag?

[Famspear]

So Famspear, does that mean you're Mountain time zone? I think I understand, dammit, will someone spell it out for me so I don't feel like a douche-bag?

Actually, the time thing has also been a bit of a challenge for me as well.
7:25 pm CST.

EDIT: OK, so the post shows 1:25 am I actually posted it at 7:25pm. That makes sense to me. I'm in Houston (central time) and we're no longer on daylight savings time this time of the year. Normally, central STANDARD time is six hours off from GMT.

But illiterati, if you're on Pacific time, and you're still showing only 6 hours difference, I'm stumped as to why that would be.

[illiterati]

Thank the good Lord (should I capitalize that?). I thought I was going defier, which means crazy. I have been checking up now and then and the times never, ever made sense to me. Knowing that Famspear, whom I see on this forum often, is Central only adds to my confusion. I think we're going to have to get some higher ups involved in this, Demo?

[wserra]

Famspear/illiterati: at User Control Panel / Board Preferences, have you set your time zone, and told the board that DST is no longer in effect?

Now stop obsessing over what time the board says it is, and get back to how the feds are bribing "bobhurt" to lead his cows to slaughter.

[Famspear]

Famspear/illiterati: at User Control Panel / Board Preferences, have you set your time zone, and told the board that DST is no longer in effect?

Now stop obsessing over what time the board says it is, and get back to how the feds are bribing "bobhurt" to lead his cows to slaughter.

Huh? Whah? Oh, uh, yeah, right! What came over me?

[illiterati]

I have done nothing proactive, which would likely contribute to my confusion. It's usually the DBs that take up the most time in a conversation. As the most topical DB, I apologize.

[Noah]

Famspear"]

Cryer's arguments were good enough for the Government to drop the tax evasion charges the morning of the trial.

Wrong. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

I can not find on the re-read why the government dropped the evasion charges...what did I miss?

[Quixote]

Famspear/illiterati: at User Control Panel / Board Preferences, have you set your time zone, and told the board that DST is no longer in effect?

Now stop obsessing over what time the board says it is, and get back to how the feds are bribing "bobhurt" to lead his cows to slaughter.

We need details. Are the feds paying him a retainer or is he on straight commission? Is there a sliding scale? I can't see the feds paying him as much for, say, a Sui as for someone of average intelligence. And, most important, is he paid out of Treasury's budget or FEMA's?

[illiterati]

Okay, I'm not done obsessing about the time thing. So, let's say I posted something at 3:00 pm, and I live in the Eastern time zone, what time would that show on the posting. Is it obvious what I'm asking here? Or am I a DB?

[LPC]

And why don't you subscribe to the Lawmen mailing list. Only I post to it,

Which speaks volumes.

[Famspear]

I can not find on the re-read why the government dropped the evasion charges...what did I miss?

Dear Noah: The material I posted does not state why the government dropped the evasion charges. So, you didn't miss anything on that point. I don't know why the government dropped the evasion charge. You would have to ask the prosecutor in the case.

What I think you're missing is my point about your attempt to tie Cryer's legal arguments to the prosecutor's action in dropping the evasion charges. That makes no sense.

Look, Cryer made various legal arguments about his case. He put those arguments in a brief, and asked the judge to throw his case out. I listed the arguments above. In March 2007, the judge ruled against those arguments. That means that the judge rejected Cryer's attempt to have the case against him thrown out. Thus, the case went on to a jury trial. (In other words, had the judge ruled in favor of Cryer, there would never have been a jury trial.)

The actual trial started in July. You seemed to imply that the reason that the government, in July, dropped the evasion charges against Cryer was because the government thought that the legal arguments -- which the judge had already rejected back in March -- were somehow related to the dropping of the charges. That makes no sense. That would be like the prosecutor saying, "Hey, the judge ruled in our favor and against Cryer back in March, so now, in July, we've got to drop these evasion charges."

Remember, in a criminal case, the general rule is that neither the prosecution nor the defense is allowed to by-pass the judge and try to "argue the law" to the jury. (Same rule in non-criminal cases as well.) After the trial, Cryer and his attorney even confirmed that they had not been allowed to "argue the law" in front of the jury. (I don't have a transcript of the interview, but I did hear a recording of it on the internet a day or two after the trial.)

In other words, Noah, I'm not seeing what your logical train of thought is here. It seems as though you're implying that you believe that the prosecutor was so worried about the validity of Cryer's legal positions that the prosecutor dropped the evasion charges, even though the judge had already rejected those arguments, and therefore would have, in all likelihood, rejected an attempt by Cryer to present those arguments to the jury.

Tax evasion (section 7201) is, of course, generally harder to prove than willful failure to timely file a return (section 7203), everything else being equal. But we don't know (or at least I don't know) why the government dropped the evasion charges. We DO KNOW that it makes no sense to say the government dropped the charges because of legal arguments that the Court had already rejected -- arguments that the Court apparently (and correctly) prevented the jury from hearing.

A caveat: Cryer and Becraft are not dummies. During the trial, they may have tried to insinuate Cryer's positions on the tax law -- with the jury in the room -- by presenting the positions to the jury as part of an explanation of Cryer's "beliefs", in an ostensible attempt to negate the mens rea element of willfulness. Could the jury have been confused by such a presentation? Sure. Is that what actually happened? I don't know.

[Famspear]

One thing that puzzles me is the wording of the indictment against Cryer on the tax evasion charges. The indictment says that Cryer evaded the tax by failing to file a return or failing to pay a tax. I believe I have seen this wording on other indictments as well.

Why does the government use this language in section 7201 evasion cases? Failure to file, and failure to pay, are not elements of tax evasion. You can willfully fail to file a return and willfully fail to pay and be guilty under section 7203, but the mere willful failure to do these things will not satisfy the "attempt" language of section 7201 which, under the case law, requires an affirmative act, not a mere omission or failure to act (no matter how "willful" the omission or failure may be).

Does anyone know why this kind of language is put into indictments charging a 7201 tax evasion? Shouldn't the defense attack an indictment charging 7201, on that basis?

[LPC]

Cryer's arguments were good enough for the Government to drop the tax evasion charges the morning of the trial.

This is the sort of thing that I actually laugh out loud when I read, because it demonstrates some very common misconceptions about how courts work and what lawyers do.

Cryer lost every motion he filed before the actual trial, so the government was obviously not worried about Cryer's legal arguments.

But most lawyers will allege things that that they aren't really sure that they can prove in court (I know I have) and will wait until the last minute before deciding what they will really put "at issue" before the jury/judge or trier of fact. And lawyers will give up on weak charges because you don't want to weaken what you think is your good case by arguing what you know is a weak case. So it is absolutely understandable (and normal) to me that the government would indict Cryer for both willful failure to file and tax evasion, maintain the evasion charges up until the day of the trial, and then decide to drop the evasion charges in order to prosecute him for the lesser (included) charge of willfully failing to file. That decision would have nothing to do with the legal arguments that Cryer presented, and everything to do with what the government thought about its evidence (of "willfully") and how that evidence would be viewed by the jury.

[The Operative]

Cryer's arguments were good enough for the Government to drop the tax evasion charges the morning of the trial.

This is the sort of thing that I actually laugh out loud when I read, because it demonstrates some very common misconceptions about how courts work and what lawyers do.

Cryer lost every motion he filed before the actual trial, so the government was obviously not worried about Cryer's legal arguments.

Actually, Cryer did win one motion (#48 on the docket, ruling is entry 63). That motion and subsequent ruling is probably leading to Noah's confusion. The memorandum ruling can be found at

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/cryer63.pdf

[grixit]

[

I have an idea, fellow Quatloosers.

Ok, a bit of terminology clarification. The term Quatloser applies to people like you who persist in trying to impose your own misunderstandings of the law on the real world. The term for those of us who know what the really is, even when it conflicts with what we think it ought to be, are called Quatloosians.

[BBFlatt]

One thing that puzzles me is the wording of the indictment against Cryer on the tax evasion charges. The indictment says that Cryer evaded the tax by failing to file a return or failing to pay a tax. I believe I have seen this wording on other indictments as well.

Why does the government use this language in section 7201 evasion cases? Failure to file, and failure to pay, are not elements of tax evasion. You can willfully fail to file a return and willfully fail to pay and be guilty under section 7203, but the mere willful failure to do these things will not satisfy the "attempt" language of section 7201 which, under the case law, requires an affirmative act, not a mere omission or failure to act (no matter how "willful" the omission or failure may be).

Does anyone know why this kind of language is put into indictments charging a 7201 tax evasion? Shouldn't the defense attack an indictment charging 7201, on that basis?

Charging a defendant with tax evasion in a failure to file case is usually referred to as Spies Evasion (ref Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 498-99). Generally some affirmative act to conceal or defeat collection, in addition to the mere failure to file, must be proved.
(1943)