Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
194 Page 1
348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192, 54-2 USTC P 9715, 46 A.F.T.R. 968, 1954-2 C.B. 225
(Cite as: 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194)
Prosecution for federal income tax evasion under net [3] Criminal Law 110 534(1)
worth method of proof. The United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts entered judgment of conviction, 110 Criminal Law
and defendant appealed. The United States Court of Appeals 110XVII Evidence
for the First Circuit, 210 F.2d 496, affirmed the conviction and 110XVII(T) Confessions
the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Supreme Court Mr. 110k533 Corroboration
Justice Clark, held that defendant's extrajudicial admissions as 110k534 In General
to his opening net worth were sufficiently corroborated by 110k534(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
independent evidence to authorize submission of case to jury.
The purpose of the rule that an accused may not be
Affirmed. convicted on his own uncorroborated confession is to prevent
errors in convictions based upon untrue confessions alone.
West Headnotes
[4] Criminal Law 110 534(1)
[1] Internal Revenue 220 5314
110 Criminal Law
220 Internal Revenue 110XVII Evidence
220XXXII Offenses 110XVII(T) Confessions
220XXXII(B) Criminal Prosecution 110k533 Corroboration
220k5311 Questions for Jury 110k534 In General
220k5314 k. Net worth issues. Most Cited Cases 110k534(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 220k2458)
The rule that an accused may not be convicted on his own
In prosecution for federal income tax evasion, question of uncorroborated confession is applicable to the crime of tax
whether net worth statement submitted to government agent evasion though there is no tangible corpus delicti in such
by taxpayer's accountant had been obtained by trickery, fraud crime, and corroborative evidence must implicate the accused
or deceit of the agent (in promising to close the case upon in order to show that crime has been committed.
receipt of such statement and check covering tax deficiency)
thus rendering statement inadmissible in evidence, was, on[5] Criminal Law 110 409(6.1)
conflicting evidence presented, one for jury.
110 Criminal Law
[2] Criminal Law 110 671 110XVII Evidence
110XVII(L) Admissions
110 Criminal Law 110k405 Admissions by Accused
110XX Trial 110k409 Proof and Effect
110XX(C) Reception of Evidence 110k409(6) Corroboration
110k671 k. Presence of jury during inquiry as to 110k409(6.1) k. In general. Most Cited
admissibility. Most Cited Cases Cases
(Formerly 110k409(6), 110k409)
110XVII Evidence
In prosecution for federal income tax evasion under net 110XVII(L) Admissions
worth method of proof, taxpayer's admission as to opening net 110k405 Admissions by Accused
worth which had been made after the fact to a government 110k409 Proof and Effect
agent charged with investigating possibility of wrongdoing 110k409(6) Corroboration
and negative implications of which formed cornerstone of 110k409(6.1) k. In general. Most Cited
government's theory of guilt, required corroboration, whether Cases
statement were considered admission of one of the formal (Formerly 110k409(6), 110k409)
elements of the crime or of fact subsidiary to proof of such
elements. In criminal prosecution, all elements of the offense must
be established by independent evidence or corroborated
[6] Criminal Law 110 409(6.1) admissions, and one available mode of corroboration is for
independent evidence to bolster defendant's confession and
thereby prove the offense through the statements of the
110 Criminal Law
defendant.
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(L) Admissions
110k405 Admissions by Accused [9] Criminal Law 110 409(6.1)
110k409 Proof and Effect
110k409(6) Corroboration 110 Criminal Law
110k409(6.1) k. In general. Most Cited 110XVII Evidence
Cases 110XVII(L) Admissions
(Formerly 110k409(6), 110k409) 110k405 Admissions by Accused
110k409 Proof and Effect
In determining whether admission of defendant must be 110k409(6) Corroboration
corroborated in criminal prosecution, practical relation of the 110k409(6.1) k. In general. Most Cited
admission to government's case, rather than its theoretical Cases
relation to definition of the offense, is the crucial test. (Formerly 110k409(6), 110k409)
[7] Criminal Law 110 409(6.1) In federal income tax evasion prosecution utilizing net
worth method of proof, government agent's testimony as to
defendant's financial status prior to period covered by
110 Criminal Law
indictment, based solely on defendant's extrajudicial
110XVII Evidence
statements (made after fact to investigating official) and relied
110XVII(L) Admissions
upon to sustain conviction, required corroboration by
110k405 Admissions by Accused
substantial independent evidence.
110k409 Proof and Effect
110k409(6) Corroboration
110k409(6.1) k. In general. Most Cited[10] Criminal Law 110 409(6.1)
Cases
(Formerly 110k409(6), 110k409) 110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
In criminal prosecution, evidence corroborative of 110XVII(L) Admissions
defendant's admissions need not prove the offense beyond 110k405 Admissions by Accused
reasonable doubt or by a preponderance, but it is sufficient if it 110k409 Proof and Effect
constitutes substantial independent evidence that offense has 110k409(6) Corroboration
been committed and the evidence as a whole proves beyond 110k409(6.1) k. In general. Most Cited
reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty. Cases
(Formerly 110k409(6), 110k409)
[8] Criminal Law 110 409(6.1)
In prosecution for federal income tax evasion under net
worth method of proof, defendant's tax returns for period prior
110 Criminal Law
to the years covered by indictment constituted substantial increments represented taxable income. The evidence tended
independent evidence sufficient to corroborate defendant'sto show that petitioner and his wife were persons of moderate
extrajudicial statements as to his financial history, and such means prior to 1945, and that toward the end of that year
returns and statements together were sufficient to corroborate petitioner acquired a racing-news service. In the four
defendant's extrajudicial admissions as to his opening net succeeding years, the prosecution years here in issue,
worth. petitioner and his wife acquired a large amount of visible
wealth in the form of bank accounts, real estate, securities, and
[11] Criminal Law 110 409(6.1) other assets. The evidence, taken as a whole, **196 tended to
prove that petitioner and his wife had understated their income
for the four-year period of by over $190,000.
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(L) Admissions The issues in this case stem from a statement signed by
110k405 Admissions by Accused the petitioner and delivered to the Government agents *150
110k409 Proof and Effect along with a check, the latter supposedly representing the
110k409(6) Corroboration amount of tax he thought due and owing.FN1 The statement, a
110k409(6.1) k. In general. Most Citedfive-page document, included tables on petitioner's securities,
Cases prior tax returns, living expenses, and a listing of petitioner's
(Formerly 110k409(6), 110k409) assets for each of the years 1945 through 1949, showing
changes in his net worth over the prosecution period. While
each of the pages was headed by the names of petitioner and
In prosecution for federal income tax evasion under net
his wife, the statement was signed only by the petitioner. His
worth method of proof, evidence of substantial expenditures,
signature appeared after a clause describing the listing of
savings and investments in excess of declared income during
assets as my true net worth for the period covered herein.
years covered by indictment tended to show that petitioner
was understating his income during prosecution years and
constituted sufficient corroboration of defendant's extrajudicial FN1. Although there had previously been discussion
net worth admission to authorize submission of case to jury. of a civil fraud penalty, this check was apparently
meant to cover only the tax liability proper.
**195 Mr. *148 W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., Boston, Mass., for
petitioner. Admissibility of the Statement.
Petitioner contends that his net worth statement should
not have been admitted in evidence because it was procured
Mr. *149 Marvin E. Frankel, Washington, D.C., for
pursuant to an understanding between petitioner and a
respondent.
Government agent that the case would be closed and the
petitioner granted immunity. See Ziang Sung Wan v. United
Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. States, 266 U.S. 1, 14, 45 S.Ct. 1, 3, 69 L.Ed. 131; Bram v.
This is the third of the net worth cases and the first United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542543, 18 S.Ct. 183, 186
dealing with the Government's use of extrajudicial statements187, 42 L.Ed. 568; Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 622
made by the accused. Petitioner and his wife were jointly tried 623, 16 S.Ct. 895, 899, 40 L.Ed. 1090; Sparf and Hansen v.
on five counts charging them with willful attempts to evade United States, 156 U.S. 51, 55, 15 S.Ct. 273, 275, 39 L.Ed.
and defeat their income taxes for the years 1946 through 1950. 343. Petitioner's accountant, who carried on negotiations with
A motion for acquittal was granted as to the wife on all five this Government agent, testified that the agent had promised to
counts, and as to petitioner on the fifth count (for the year close the case if the net worth statement and a check to cover
1950). The jury found petitioner guilty on the first four counts, the tax deficiency were forthcoming, and that he, the
and the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 210accountant, would never have submitted the statement had he
F.2d 496. We granted certiorari in order to pass on the issues not believed that the case would be closed on this basis. The
raised by the prosecution's use of defendant's extrajudicial Government agent testified that he was aware of no such
statements. 347 U.S. 1010, 74 S.Ct. 868. understanding and that he had made no promises to close the
case. After a pretrial hearing on petitioner's motion to suppress
The Government's theory was that the increases in the net evidence, the trial judge refused to suppress the net worth
worth of petitioner and his wife exceeded their reported statement. *151 During the course of the trial, he refused to
income for each of the prosecution years, and that thesehold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine
preliminary the statement's admissibility. He submitted theevidence offered by petitioner in seeking this hearing during
issue to the jury with the instruction that they were to reject the trial was the testimony of petitioner's accountant, evidence
the statement, and all evidence obtained through it, if trickery,which had been heard in the pretrial hearing and was narrated
fraud or deceit were practiced on petitioner or his accountant. again to judge and jury after the voir dire had been denied.
Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the refusal to
[1][2] The issue of fraud or deceit on the part of the hold a preliminary hearing deprived petitioner of any
Government agent was properly submitted to the jury, and the substantial right.
jury, in arriving at its general verdict, could have found from
the conflicting evidence that no fraudulent inducement had Corroboration of Petitioner's Statement.
been offered petitioner or his accountant. Petitioner cannot Petitioner's second major objection is that his net worth
complain that he was denied a voir dire, cf. United States v.statement, as it related to his opening net worth, was not
Carignan, 342 U.S. 36, 72 S.Ct. 97, 96 L.Ed. 48, since the trialcorroboratedor was insufficiently corroboratedby
judge had already held a hearing on this issue in passing on independent evidence. Petitioner's**197 statement listed his
the pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Moreover, the onlyopening net worth as follows:
In determining these opening net worth figures, the the prosecution years. But these do not bear on
Government agents relied in part on figures furnished by opening net worth and are therefore not fairly within
petitioner in his net worth statement and in other of his the question presented. Moreover, the variation
extrajudicial admissionsfor the autos, the furniture, and one possible in these figures is too slight to affect the
parcel of real estate. Any variation in these figures would not result in any significant respect.
materially affect the result.FN2 But petitioner further complains
that the Government did not corroborate the negative [3] The general rule that an accused may not be convicted
implications of his net worth statement, that he did not have at on his own uncorroborated confession has previously been
the end of 1945 any substantial assetsfor example, cash on recognized by this Court, Warszower v. United States, 312
handwhich were not reflected in his or the Government's net U.S. 342, 61 S.Ct. 603, 85 L.Ed. 876; Isaacs v. United States,
worth computation. The question presented, therefore, is159 U.S. 487, 16 S.Ct. 51, 40 L.Ed. 229; cf. Miles v. United
whether there is sufficient independent evidence toStates, 103 U.S. 304, 311312, 26 L.Ed. 481, and has been
corroborate petitioner's extrajudicial admission that he did not consistently applied in the lower federal courts and *153 in the
have sufficient assets at the starting point to account for the overwhelming majority of state courts, Forte v. United States,
increases in net worth attributed to him in the prosecution 68 App.D.C. 111, 94 F.2d 236, 127 A.L.R. 1130; 7 Wigmore,
years. Evidence, ss 20702072. Its purpose is to prevent errors in
convictions based upon untrue confessions alone, Warszower
FN2. The Government also relied on petitioner'sv. United States, supra, 312 U.S. at 347, 61 S.Ct. at page 606;
admissions in establishing his living expenses during its foundation lies in a long history of judicial experience with
confessions and in the realization that sound law enforcement Wynkoop v. United States, 9 Cir., 22 F.2d 799; Daeche v.
requires police investigations which extend beyond the words United States, 2 Cir., 250 F. 566.
of the accused. Confessions may be unreliable because they
are coerced or induced, and although separate doctrines [5][6] The next problem presented is whether the
exclude involuntary confessions from consideration by the statement here involvedthe opening net worthmust be
jury, Bram v. United States, supra; Wilson v. United States, corroborated. Although this statement was part of a document
supra, further caution is warranted because the accused maywhich may have admitted an understatement of taxable
be unable to establish the involuntary nature of his statements. income, one of the elements of the crime of tax evasion, still it
Moreover, though a statement may not be involuntary within is clear that the statement is not a confession admitting to all
the meaning of this exclusionary rule, still its reliability may the elements of the offense. There is some uncertainty in the
be suspect if it is extracted from one who is under the pressure lower court opinions as to whether the corroboration
of a police investigationwhose words may reflect the strain requirement applies to mere admissions, see United States v.
and confusion attending his predicament rather than a clear Kertess, supra, 139 F.2d at page 929; *155Ercoli v. United
reflection of his past. Finally, the experience of the courts, the States, supra, 131 F.2d at page 356. But see Warszower v.
police and the medical profession recounts a number of false United States, supra, 312 U.S. at page 347, 61 S.Ct. at page
confessions voluntarily made, Note, 28 Ind.L.J. 374. These are 606. We hold the rule applicable to such statements, at least
the considerations which justify a restriction on the power of where, as in this case, the admission is made after the fact to
the jury to convict, for this experience with confessions is not an official charged with investigating the possibility of
shared by the average juror. Nevertheless, because this rule wrongdoing, and the statement embraces an element vital to
does infringe on the province **198 of the primary finder ofthe Government's case.FN3 Cf. Gulotta v. United States, 8 Cir.,
facts, its application should be scrutinized lest the restrictions 113 F.2d 683, assimilating admissions to confessions but
it imposes surpass the dangers which gave rise to them. failing to distinguish between admissions before and after the
fact as required by the Warszower case. Accord, Duncan v.
[4] The first issue is whether the requirement of United States, 9 Cir., 68 F.2d 136; Gordnier v. United States, 9
corroboration may properly be applied to the crime of tax Cir., 261 F. 910.
evasion. The corroboration rule, at its inception, served an
extremely limited function. In order to convict of serious FN3. Admissions given under special circumstances,
crimes of violence, then capital offenses, independent proof providing grounds for a strong inference of reliability,
was required that someone had indeed inflicted the *154 may not have to be corroborated. Cf. Miles v. United
violence, the so-called corpus delicti. Once the existence of States, supra; State v. Saltzman, 241 Iowa 1373, 44
the crime was established, however, the guilt of the accused N.W.2d 24.
could be based on his own otherwise uncorroborated
confession. But in a crime such as tax evasion there is no
The negative implications of petitioner's opening net
tangible injury which can be isolated as a corpus delicti. As to
worth admission formed the cornerstone of the Government's
this crime, it cannot be shown that the crime has been
theory of guilt. Without proof that assets on hand at the
committed without identifying the accused. Thus we are faced
beginning of the prosecution period did not account for the
with the choice either of applying the corroboration rule to this
alleged net worth increases, the Government could not
offense and according the accused even greater protection than
succeed. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 75, 75 S.Ct. 127.
the rule affords to a defendant in a homicide prosecution,
An admission which assumes this importance in the
Evans v. United States, 8 Cir., 122 F.2d 461; Murray v. United
presentation of the **199 prosecution's case should not go
States, 53 App.D.C. 119, 288 F. 1008, or of finding the rule
uncorroborated, and this is true whether we consider the
wholly inapplicable because of the nature of the offense,
statement an admission of one of the formal elements' of the
stripping the accused of this guarantee altogether. We choose
crime or of a fact subsidiary to the proof of these elements. It
to apply the rule, with its broader guarantee, to crimes in
is the practical relation of the statement to the Government's
which there is no tangible corpus delicti, where the
case which is crucial, not its theoretical relation to the
corroborative evidence must implicate the accused in order to
definition of the offense.
show that a crime has been committed. See, e.g., Tabor v.
United States, 4 Cir., 152 F.2d 254; United States v. Kertess, 2
Cir., 139 F.2d 923; Ercoli v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. Although we are unable to hold on this record that
360, 131 F.2d 354; Pines v. United States, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 825; petitioner's statement was inadmissible, the evidence is
Forte v. United States, 68 App.D.C. 111, 94 F.2d 236, 127 sufficient to cast doubt on the accuracy of his admissions. The
A.L.R. 1120; Tingle v. United States, 8 Cir., 38 F.2d 573; unreliability of the statement is illustrated by the great
variance between its net worth calculation and theGovernment official testified that petitioner had filed no
Government's computation, although petitioner's income tax returns in the years 1936 through 1939, nontaxable
consistent*156 erring in his own favor made it notreturns for 1940 and 1942, a nonassessable return for 1943, a
unreasonable for the Government to hold him to his word refundable return for 1944, and a taxable return for 1941.
where it was to the Government's advantage. On the whole, Second, the testimony of a Government agent, touching upon
the statement is one which should be carefully scrutinized in the economic activities of the petitioner in the years
the light of the available independent evidence. immediately preceding the prosecution period, disclosed that
prior to 1941 petitioner had been employed as a manager of a
[7][8] There has been considerable debate concerning theracing-news service; that from **200 1941 to 1945 he worked
quantum of corroboration necessary to substantiate the in a package store for $40 a week; and that for a short time
existence of the crime charged. It is agreed that theduring this latter period his wife worked as a hairdresser. The
corroborative evidence does not have to prove the offense agent's testimony, however, was based solely on the
beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance, asextrajudicial statements of the petitioner, and under the
long as there is substantial independent evidence that the standard we have adopted these admissions must be
FN4
offense has been committed, and the evidence as a wholecorroborated by substantial independent evidence. The *158
proves beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty. tax returns adequately corroborate petitioner's statements as to
Gregg v. United States, 8 Cir., 113 F.2d 687; Jordan v. Unitedhis financial history, and we hold that the two together
States, 4 Cir., 60 F.2d 4; Forte v. United States, supra; Daeche corroborate the opening net worth. The jury could find from
v. United States, supra. But cf. United States v. Fenwick, 7this evidence that petitioner's resources prior to the
Cir., 177 F.2d 488. In addition to differing views on the prosecution years were such that he could not have amassed a
substantiality of specific independent evidence, the debate has greater store of wealth than the amount credited to him in the
centered largely about two questions: (1) whether Government's net worth statement. This proof is buttressed
corroboration is necessary for all elements of the offense somewhat by independent evidence that petitioner had bought
established by admissions alone, compare Ercoli v. United a modest home in 1943 for $9,600, paying less than one-third
States, supra, and Pines v. United States, supra, with Wynkoop in cash and the balance in installments, and by the fact that
v. United States, supra, and Pearlman v. United States, 9 Cir.,petitioner's wife, who held the bulk of the family's assets in
10 F.2d 460, and (2) whether it is sufficient if the her name, was a housewife through almost all of the
corroboration merely fortifies the truth of the confession, preprosecution years with no significant independent sources
without independently establishing the crime charged, of income.
compare Pearlman v. United States, supra, and Daeche v.
United States, supra, with Pines v. United States, supra, and FN4. They were made to officials after the offense
Forte v. United States, supra. We answer both in the had been committed. It may be questioned, though,
affirmative. All elements of the offense must be established by whether these admissions were as basic to the
independent evidence or corroborated admissions, but one Government's case as the statements concerning
available mode of corroboration is for the independent opening net worth, and whether they should therefore
evidence to bolster the confession itself and thereby prove the be exempted from the requirement of corroboration.
offense through the statements of the accused. Cf. Parker v. But where a fact is sufficiently important that the
State, 228 Ind. 1, 88 N.E.2d 556, 89 N.E.2d 442. Government adduces extrajudicial statements of the
accused bearing on its existence, and then relies on
*157 [9][10] Under the above standard the Government its existence to sustain the defendant's conviction,
may provide the necessary corroboraton by introducing there is need for corroboration. Cf. United States v.
substantial evidence, apart from petitioner's admissions, Kertess, supra, 139 F.2d at page 930.
tending to show that petitioner willfully understated his
taxable income. This may be accomplished by substantiating [11] But substantiating the opening net worth is just one
the opening net worth directly, since that figure, taken together method of corroborating these extrajudicial statements.
with the remainder of the net worth computation, amply Petitioner's admissions may also be corroborated by an
establishes a consistent understatement by petitioner of his entirely different line of proofby independent evidence
taxable income; and from this the jury could infer willfulness. concerning petitioner's conduct during the prosecution period,
Two significant items of evidence tend to show that petitioner which tends to establish the crime of tax evasion without
owned no assets at the starting point in excess of those resort to the net worth computations. The Government's
attributed to him in the Government's statement. First, a evidence showed that coincident with petitioner's opening of
the racing-news service, in which he kept no records, income, coupled with proof of a business producing
petitioner and his wife opened 9 new bank accounts, making unrecorded amounts of income, fails to corroborate the charge
their over-all total 14 accounts in 12 banks; that the money in that petitioner's**201 earnings during the prosecution years
these accounts, which amounted to only $8,000 at theexceeded his declared income.
beginning of the prosecution period, varied between $42,000
and $80,000 during the prosecution years; that brokerage We hold that under either of these two lines of proof
accounts, opened by petitioner and his wife in 1947 and 1948 sufficient corroboration was shown to permit the case to go to
respectively, were worth $9,000 in 1947 and over $41,000 in the jury. The circumstances leading up to petitioner's
1948 and 1949; that petitioner and his wife made new statement, and the failure of the facts shown therein to mesh
investments in realty during the prosecution period, about with the other evidence adduced by the Government, imposed
$2,000 in 1946, over $14,000 in 1948, and $35,000 in 1949; on the trial judge and the reviewing courts a duty of careful
that other substantial expenditures were made during the *159scrutiny. Nevertheless, the independent evidence was strong
prosecution years, $3,750 in U.S. Savings Bonds in 1946, a enough, we believe, to overcome these indicia of unreliability,
total investment of $4,768 in new cars in 1947 and 1948, and a and we accordingly affirm.
$37,000 annuity payment and $3,750 mink coat in 1949.
During these same years petitioner's declared income Affirmed.
exceeded his living expenses by less than $3,000. These
substantial expenditures, savings and investments might not,
of themselves, suffice to support a conviction of tax evasion U.S. 1954.
without evidence of a starting point indicating a lack of fundsSmith v. U.S.
from which these payments might have come. But this348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192, 54-2 USTC P 9715,
conduct does corroborate the net worth statement by tending 46 A.F.T.R. 968, 1954-2 C.B. 225
to show that the petitioner was understating his income during
the prosecution years. We cannot say that there is so little END OF DOCUMENT
relation between expenditures and income that the
Government's proof of expenditures far in excess of reported
KEYCITE
Smith v. U.S., 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192, 54-2 USTC P 9715, 46 A.F.T.R. 968, 1954-2 C.B. 225
(U.S.Mass.,Dec 06, 1954) (NO. 52)
History
Direct History
1 Smith v. U.S., 210 F.2d 496, 54-1 USTC P 9259, 45 A.F.T.R. 343 (1st Cir.(Mass.) Feb 26, 1954)
(NO. 4792)
Certiorari Granted by
2 Smith v. United States, 347 U.S. 1010, 74 S.Ct. 868, 98 L.Ed. 1134 (U.S.Mass. Jun 07, 1954) (NO.
726.)
AND Judgment Affirmed by
=> 3 Smith v. U.S., 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192, 54-2 USTC P 9715, 46 A.F.T.R. 968, 1954-
2 C.B. 225 (U.S.Mass. Dec 06, 1954) (NO. 52)
Disagreement Recognized by
4 State v. Hauk, 257 Wis.2d 579, 652 N.W.2d 393, 2002 WI App 226 (Wis.App. Aug 01, 2002) (NO.
01-1668-CR, 01-1669-CR) HN: 5,9 (S.Ct.)
5 U.S. v. Dalhouse, 534 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.(Ind.) Jul 24, 2008) (NO. 07-2654) HN: 8,9,10 (S.Ct.)
Declined to Extend by
6 State v. Dionne, 814 So.2d 1087, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D616 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. Mar 15, 2002) (NO.
5D01-1087), rehearing denied (May 03, 2002) HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
7 U.S. v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777, 2006 Fed.App. 0328P (6th Cir.(Mich.) Aug 30, 2006) (NO. 05-
2058), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied (Nov 13, 2006) HN: 8,9 (S.Ct.)
8 State v. Weisser, 141 N.M. 93, 150 P.3d 1043, 2007-NMCA-015 (N.M.App. Dec 22, 2006) (NO.
25,079) HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
Distinguished by
9 Thomas v. C.I.R., 223 F.2d 83, 55-1 USTC P 9509, 47 A.F.T.R. 1170 (6th Cir. Jun 14, 1955) (NO.
12175, 12176, 12177, 12178) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
10 U.S. v. Wheeler, 275 F.2d 94, 5 A.F.T.R.2d 927, 60-1 USTC P 9306 (3rd Cir.(Pa.) Mar 02, 1960)
(NO. 12925) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
11 Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (U.S.Cal. Jan 14, 1963) (NO. 36)
HN: 4,7,8 (S.Ct.)
12 Rodriquez v. U.S., 407 F.2d 832 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Jan 28, 1969) (NO. 22987) HN: 4,8,9 (S.Ct.)
13 U.S. v. Parenti, 326 F.Supp. 717, 16 A.L.R. Fed. 520, 28 A.F.T.R.2d 71-5633, 71-2 USTC P 9613
Court Documents
KEYCITE
Smith v. U.S., 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192, 54-2 USTC P 9715, 46 A.F.T.R. 968, 1954-2 C.B. 225
(U.S.Mass., Dec 06, 1954) (NO. 52)
KEYCITE
Smith v. U.S., 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192, 54-2 USTC P 9715, 46 A.F.T.R. 968, 1954-2 C.B. 225
(U.S.Mass. Dec 06, 1954) (NO. 52)
Citing References
Disagreement Recognized by
1 U.S. v. Dalhouse, 534 F.3d 803, 806+ (7th Cir.(Ind.) Jul 24, 2008) (NO. 07-2654) HN: 8,9,10
(S.Ct.)
2 State v. Hauk, 652 N.W.2d 393, 400+, 257 Wis.2d 579, 594+, 2002 WI App 226, 226+ (Wis.App.
Aug 01, 2002) (NO. 01-1668-CR, 01-1669-CR) " HN: 5,9 (S.Ct.)
Declined to Extend by
3 State v. Weisser, 150 P.3d 1043, 1047+, 141 N.M. 93, 97+, 2007-NMCA-015, 015+ (N.M.App. Dec
22, 2006) (NO. 25,079) HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
4 U.S. v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777, 787+, 2006 Fed.App. 0328P, 0328P+ (6th Cir.(Mich.) Aug 30, 2006)
(NO. 05-2058) " HN: 8,9 (S.Ct.)
5 State v. Dionne, 814 So.2d 1087, 1092, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D616, D616 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. Mar 15,
2002) (NO. 5D01-1087) HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
Distinguished by
6 G.E.G. v. State, 54 So.3d 949, 954+ (Ala. May 07, 2010) (NO. 1080779) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
7 State v. Mesot, 2008 WL 732151, *4+ (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar 14, 2008) (NO. M200602599-CCA-R3-
CD) " HN: 7,8,9 (S.Ct.)
8 U.S. v. Hayat, 2007 WL 1454280, *10+ (E.D.Cal. May 17, 2007) (NO. 2:05-CR-240-GEB) "
HN: 4,8,9 (S.Ct.)
9 U.S. v. Thayer, 32 Fed.Appx. 498, 503+ (10th Cir.(Colo.) Jan 30, 2002) (Table, text in WESTLAW,
NO. 00-1464) " HN: 4,9 (S.Ct.)
10 Roe v. Senkowski, 2001 WL 1860884, *2+ (N.D.N.Y. Feb 20, 2001) (NO. 9:98-CV-0656 NAM
GLS) HN: 4,5,9 (S.Ct.)
11 U.S. v. Simmons, 923 F.2d 934, 954+, 32 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1296, 1296+ (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Jan 11,
1991) (NO. 473TO483, 484, 88-1504, 88-1505, 88-1506, 88-1507, 88-1512, 88-1521, 88-1522-88-
1525) HN: 3,8,9 (S.Ct.)
12 U.S. v. Fernandez, 861 F.2d 269, 269+ (9th Cir.(Cal.) Oct 24, 1988) (Table, text in WESTLAW, NO.
87-5043) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
13 U.S. v. Parenti, 326 F.Supp. 717, 725+, 16 A.L.R. Fed. 520, 520+, 28 A.F.T.R.2d 71-5633, 71-5633+,
71-2 USTC P 9613, 9613+ (E.D.Pa. Mar 31, 1971) (NO. CRIM. 23204) HN: 1,5,9 (S.Ct.)
14 Rodriquez v. U.S., 407 F.2d 832, 833+ (9th Cir.(Cal.) Jan 28, 1969) (NO. 22987) " HN: 4,8,9
Examined
20 U.S. v. Ford, 237 F.2d 57, 63+, 56-2 USTC P 9823, 9823+, 50 A.F.T.R. 228, 228+ (2nd Cir.(N.Y.)
Aug 06, 1956) (NO. 174, 23754) " HN: 5,9,11 (S.Ct.)
21 U.S. v. Alker, 260 F.2d 135, 140+, 2 A.F.T.R.2d 5713, 5713+, 58-2 USTC P 9829, 9829+ (3rd Cir.
(Pa.) Sep 10, 1958) (NO. 12313) HN: 9,10,11 (S.Ct.)
22 Smyly v. U.S., 287 F.2d 760, 761+ (5th Cir.(Tex.) Feb 24, 1961) (NO. 18479) " HN: 4,5,9 (S.Ct.)
23 U.S. v. Ramirez, 635 F.3d 249, 256+ (6th Cir.(Tenn.) Feb 14, 2011) (NO. 09-6544) " HN: 3,7,8
(S.Ct.)
24 West v. Foster, 2009 WL 1111175, *2+ (D.Nev. Apr 20, 2009) (NO. 2:07-CV-00021-KJDGWF) HN:
3,4,9 (S.Ct.)
25 U.S. v. Jones, 232 F.Supp.2d 618, 620+ (E.D.Va. Nov 13, 2002) (NO. CR. 302CR227) " HN: 5,8,9
(S.Ct.)
26 U.S. v. Duvall, 44 M.J. 501, 503+ (A.F.Ct.Crim.App. Apr 12, 1996) (NO. ACM31342) HN: 3,4
(S.Ct.)
27 State v. Jones ex rel. County of Maricopa, 6 P.3d 323, 326+, 198 Ariz. 18, 21+, 323 Ariz. Adv. Rep.
28, 28+ (Ariz.App. Div. 1 Jun 13, 2000) (NO. 1 CA-SA 00-0039) " HN: 3,4,8 (S.Ct.)
Discussed
28 Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. U.S., 83 S.Ct. 448, 453+, 371 U.S. 341, 347+, 9 L.Ed.2d 357, 357+, 11
A.F.T.R.2d 401, 401+, 63-1 USTC P 9184, 9184+, 1963-1 C.B. 365, 365+ (U.S.Ill. Jan 14, 1963)
(NO. 16) " HN: 1,2 (S.Ct.)
29 U.S. v. Calderon, 75 S.Ct. 186, 187+, 348 U.S. 160, 161+, 99 L.Ed. 202, 202+, 54-2 USTC P 9712,
9712+, 46 A.F.T.R. 962, 962+, 1954-2 C.B. 230, 230+ (U.S.Ariz. Dec 06, 1954) (NO. 25) HN:
9,10,11 (S.Ct.)
30 U.S. v. Singleterry, 29 F.3d 733, 737+ (1st Cir.(Me.) Jul 18, 1994) (NO. 93-2232) " HN: 8,9 (S.Ct.)
31 Massei v. U.S., 241 F.2d 895, 903+, 57-1 USTC P 9434, 9434+, 50 A.F.T.R. 1760, 1760+ (1st Cir.
Cited
94 Jackson v. Denno, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 1788+, 378 U.S. 368, 390+, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 908+, 1 A.L.R.3d
1205, 1205+ (U.S.N.Y. Jun 22, 1964) (NO. 62) " HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
95 U.S. v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 78 S.Ct. 245, 254+, 355 U.S. 233, 248+, 2 L.Ed.2d 234, 234+, 58-1
USTC P 9124, 9124+, 52 A.F.T.R. 849, 849+, 1958-1 C.B. 535, 535+ (U.S.Ill. Dec 16, 1957) (NO.
1) HN: 1,2 (S.Ct.)
96 Holland v. U.S., 75 S.Ct. 127, 130+, 348 U.S. 121, 124+, 99 L.Ed. 150, 150+, 54-2 USTC P 9714,
9714+, 46 A.F.T.R. 943, 943+, 1954-2 C.B. 215, 215+ (U.S.Colo. Dec 06, 1954) (NO. 37) HN: 9
(S.Ct.)
97 Opper v. U.S., 75 S.Ct. 158, 163+, 348 U.S. 84, 91+, 99 L.Ed. 101, 101+, 45 A.L.R.2d 1308, 1308+
(U.S.Ohio Dec 06, 1954) (NO. 49) HN: 5,8,9 (S.Ct.)
98 Tash v. Roden, 626 F.3d 15, 18+ (1st Cir.(Mass.) Nov 16, 2010) (NO. 10-1173) HN: 7 (S.Ct.)
99 U.S. v. Stark, 499 F.3d 72, 80 (1st Cir.(Mass.) Aug 16, 2007) (NO. 06-1853) " HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
100 U.S. v. O'Connell, 703 F.2d 645, 647+ (1st Cir.(Mass.) Apr 01, 1983) (NO. 81-1222, 81-1223, 81-
1648) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
101 U.S. v. Speaks, 453 F.2d 966, 968 (1st Cir.(N.H.) Jan 11, 1972) (NO. 71-1292) HN: 7,8 (S.Ct.)
102 U.S. v. Stafford, 2011 WL 1938662, *1 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) May 23, 2011) (Table, text in WESTLAW,
NO. 10-2123-CR) " HN: 3,4 (S.Ct.)
103 U.S. v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110, 118 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Jun 23, 2006) (NO. 04-0971-CR) " HN: 7,8 (S.Ct.)
Mentioned
410 Mackey v. U.S., 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1162, 401 U.S. 667, 669, 28 L.Ed.2d 404, 404, 27 A.F.T.R.2d 71-
1006, 71-1006, 71-1 USTC P 9305, 9305, 1971-1 C.B. 409, 409 (U.S.Ind. Apr 05, 1971) (NO. 36)
HN: 9,11 (S.Ct.)
411 Beecher v. Alabama, 88 S.Ct. 189, 192, 389 U.S. 35, 39, 19 L.Ed.2d 35, 35 (U.S.Ala. Oct 23, 1967)
(NO. 92, MISC.) HN: 1 (S.Ct.)
412 Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1493, 378 U.S. 1, 7, 12 L.Ed.2d 653, 653 (U.S.Conn. Jun 15, 1964)
(NO. 110)
413 Costello v. U.S., 76 S.Ct. 406, 407, 350 U.S. 359, 360, 100 L.Ed. 397, 397, 56-1 USTC P 9321,
9321, 48 A.F.T.R. 689, 689, 1956-1 C.B. 639, 639 (U.S.N.Y. Mar 05, 1956) (NO. 72) HN: 9,10,11
(S.Ct.)
414 Goldbaum v. U.S., 75 S.Ct. 311, 311, 348 U.S. 905, 905, 99 L.Ed. 710, 710, 55-1 USTC P 9139,
9139, 48 A.F.T.R. 1216, 1216 (U.S.Cal. Jan 10, 1955) (NO. 12) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
415 Watts v. U.S., 75 S.Ct. 311, 311, 348 U.S. 905, 905, 99 L.Ed. 710, 710, 55-1 USTC P 9139, 9139, 48
A.F.T.R. 1216, 1216 (U.S.Colo. Jan 10, 1955) (NO. 135) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
416 McFee v. U.S., 75 S.Ct. 311, 311, 348 U.S. 905, 905, 99 L.Ed. 710, 710, 55-1 USTC P 9139, 9139,
48 A.F.T.R. 1216, 1216 (U.S.Idaho Jan 10, 1955) (NO. 15) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
417 Brown v. U.S., 75 S.Ct. 311, 311, 348 U.S. 905, 905, 99 L.Ed. 710, 710, 55-1 USTC P 9139, 9139,
48 A.F.T.R. 1216, 1216 (U.S.Ky. Jan 10, 1955) (NO. 133) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
418 Banks v. U.S., 75 S.Ct. 311, 311, 348 U.S. 905, 905, 99 L.Ed. 710, 710, 55-1 USTC P 9139, 9139, 48
A.F.T.R. 1216, 1216 (U.S.Minn. Jan 10, 1955) (NO. 13) HN: 2 (S.Ct.)
Registers (U.S.A.)
557 Disclosure of Return Information by Certain Officers and Employees for Investigative Purposes, 68
Federal Register 41073 (Jul 10, 2003) HN: 5 (S.Ct.)
Court Documents
Appellate Briefs
820 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. Humphrey JONES, Appellant., 1994 WL 16046918,
*16046918+ (Appellate Brief) (4th Cir. Oct 06, 1994) Brief for the United States (NO. 94-5403)
1148 STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. Terrell C. GAW, Appellant., 2008 WL 5736907, *5736907
(Appellate Brief) (Mo. Apr 09, 2008) Appellant's Statement, Brief, and Argument (NO.
SD28715)
1149 State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christine GUEST, Appellant., 2007 WL 2123627, *2123627+
(Appellate Brief) (Mo.App. E.D. Jun 26, 2007) Appellant's Statement, Brief and Argument (NO.
ED89151) " HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
1150 State of Montana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy McGARVEY, Defendant-Appellant., 2005 WL
1351542, *1351542+ (Appellate Brief) (Mont. May 24, 2005) Reply Brief (NO. 04-190) "
HN: 3,4,8 (S.Ct.)
1151 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. Sharum Bernard SIMS., 2004 WL 3095667, *3095667+
(Appellate Brief) (N.C.App. Dec 07, 2004) Brief for the State (NO. COA04-1170) HN: 4
(S.Ct.)
1152 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Appellee, v. James B. TORKELSEN, Appellant., 2008 WL 2330089,
*2330089+ (Appellate Brief) (N.D. May 01, 2008) Brief of Appellee (NO. 20070369, 20070372,
20070373) " HN: 3,5,9 (S.Ct.)
1153 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. Andre BLOCKER, Defendant-
Appellant., 2000 WL 35599054, *35599054+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. Sep 29, 2000)
Brief for the Defendant-Appellant (NO. 124) " HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1154 STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Antwuan M. MIDDLEBROOKS, Defendant-Appellee.,
1998 WL 34262739, *34262739+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Feb 02, 1998) Merit Brief of Appellant,
State of Ohio (NO. 97-2008) HN: 3,4 (S.Ct.)
1155 Brittany Marlowe HOLBERG, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS., 2000 WL 35602431, *35602431+
(Appellate Brief) (Tex.Crim.App. Aug 16, 2000) Appellant's Supplemental Brief (NO. 73127) "
HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
1156 Steve Edward ROACH, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Appellee., 1995 WL
17223999, *17223999+ (Appellate Brief) (Va. Oct 13, 1995) Brief of Appellant (NO. 951416)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1157 Calvin Eugene SWANN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Appellee., 1993 WL
13159598, *13159598+ (Appellate Brief) (Va. Nov 16, 1993) Brief of Appellant (NO. 931434,
931435) HN: 3,4 (S.Ct.)
1158 State of Washington, Respondent, v. Michael J. BROCKOB, Appellant., 2005 WL 4146877,
*4146877+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Apr 22, 2005) Brief of Respondent (NO. 31729-0, 78571-6)
HN: 4,8 (S.Ct.)
1159 STATE OF WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. Shane VANGERPEN, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.,
1994 WL 16814060, *16814060 (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Jun 10, 1994) Supplemental Brief of
Respondent, Cross-Petitioner Vangerpen (NO. 60924-1)
1160 STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Edward BANNISTER, Defendant-
Appellant., 2006 WL 6188319, *6188319+ (Appellate Brief) (Wis. Nov 16, 2006) Brief and
Appendix of Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Edward J. Bannister (NO. 2005AP767) "
HN: 4 (S.Ct.)
1161 In the Interest of Jerrell C.J. A Person Under the Age of 17: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner-
Oral Arguments
1167 United States v. Alexander Kirk., 2008 WL 2933931, *2933931+ (Oral Argument) (8th Cir. Apr 15,
2008) Oral Argument (NO. 07-3215) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
Expert Testimony
1168 DUNKIN DONUTS INC, v. N A S T INC, et al., 2002 WL 33907696, *33907696 (Expert Report
and Affidavit) (N.D.Ill. 2002) (Report or Affidavit of Craig L. Greene, C.F.E., C.P.A.) (NO.
102CV01272)
1179 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Cho-Ing TSENG, Defendant., 2007 WL 4397294,
*4397294+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Cal. May 25, 2007) Government's
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Rule 29 Motion (NO. 07CR0178-L)
1180 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Torrance McCOWN., 2009 WL 1615562, *1615562 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Conn. Mar 10, 2009) Defendant Torrance McCown's
Motion to Set Aside the Verdict Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 and Motion for Judgment of
Acquittal Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b) (NO. 308CR4, JCH) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
1181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Rudolph ANDERSON, aka ""Pinky"" and ""Bo Pee,"" and
Dennis Rowe, aka ""Dicky""., 2001 WL 36090578, *36090578 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (D.Conn. Aug 20, 2001) United States' Supplemental Response to Defendant Dennis
Rowe's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (NO. 399CR266, RNC)
1182 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Gbeke AWALA, Defendant., 2006 WL 6555377,
*6555377 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Del. May 09, 2006) Reply Brief on the
Issue of Corpus Delicti (NO. 04-90-KAJ) HN: 9 (S.Ct.)
1183 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Gbeke AWALA, Defendant., 2006 WL 6342337,
*6342337 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Del. May 04, 2006) Response by the
1194 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Justin STERLING., 2006 WL 4725226, *4725226+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.La. Jan 04, 2006) Notice of ""Other Crimes''
Evidence (NO. 05-20061-001) " HN: 3,4 (S.Ct.)
1195 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Derek NASH., 2005 WL 6381383, *6381383+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.La. Sep 16, 2005) Government's Supplemental Response to
Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (NO. 05-50038-01)
1196 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Lavatae MILTON., 2005 WL 6381384, *6381384+ (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.La. Sep 16, 2005) Government's Supplemental
Response tao Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (NO. 05-50038-02)
Trial Transcripts
1232 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Christopher D. REYES, Defendant., 2000 WL
35615539, *35615539 (Trial Transcript) (S.D.N.Y. Dec 06, 2000) Defendant Christopher D.
Reyes' Motion for Acquittal (NO. 00CR243)
Trial Filings
1233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Joseph E. KENNEDY, Defendant., 2005 WL 6228735,
*6228735 (Trial Filing) (S.D.Ohio Apr 22, 2005) Government's Trial Brief (NO. 204-CR-00019)
HN: 5,9 (S.Ct.)
1234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Rocco DESIMONE., 2009 WL 7073363, *7073363 (Trial
Jury Instructions
1235 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Mattie Jean SATURNE, Defendant., 2006 WL
6331329, *6331329 (Jury Instruction) (S.D.Fla. Aug 21, 2006) (NO. 06-14030-CR-GRAHAM/L)
HN: 8 (S.Ct.)
1236 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Lavatae MILTON., 2005 WL 6381385, *6381385 (Jury
Instruction) (W.D.La. Sep 16, 2005) Defendant's Requested Jury Instruction (NO. 05-50038-01-
02)
1237 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Richard Allen LANGE, Defendant., 2007 WL
7113604, *7113604 (Jury Instruction) (D.Minn. Aug 20, 2007) Government's Request for
Instructions of Law (NO. 07-93, PAM)
1238 Melanie A. HENRY, Plaintiff, v. PEMISCOT MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, and Dr. John
Nwora, Defendants., 2007 WL 4678496, *4678496 (Jury Instruction) (E.D.Mo. Jul 17, 2007)
Defendant Dr. John Nwora's Proposed Jury Instructions (NO. 105CV00075SNL)
1239 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. (1) Anthony L. JINWRIGHT, (2) Harriet P. Jinwright., 2010
WL 3691515, *3691515 (Jury Instruction) (W.D.N.C. Mar 26, 2010) Government's Proposed Jury
Instructions (NO. 309CR67-W) HN: 10 (S.Ct.)
1240 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Robin L. Iron SHIELD, Defendant., 2010 WL
4854637, *4854637 (Jury Instruction) (D.N.D. Sep 22, 2010) Proposed Jury Instruction (NO. 110-
CR-059) HN: 7 (S.Ct.)