U.S. v. Stuart

In prosecution on tax evasion charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion for new trial based on claim that his counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to interview defendant regarding defendant’s source of his tax-protesting beliefs; (2) failing to call two witnesses on his behalf; (3) failing to cross-examine govt. witness concerning said witness’ alleged embezzlement; and (4) failing to call defendant as witness on his own behalf. Ct. found as factual matter that counsel did ascertain defendant’s reasons for not paying said taxes and incorporated those reasons in opening and closing statements. Ct. further noted that defendant waived his right to testify pursuant to colloquy with Dist. Ct. Additionally, defendant failed to identify what other evidence his proposed witnesses would have added to his defense, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to cross-examine govt. witness on alleged embezzlement scheme, where there was nothing in record to indicate that said witness would have confessed to such crime.