Criminal Law

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.

In prosecution on charge of failing to surrender to prison authorities, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting portions of letter that defendant’s counsel wrote to defendant that advised defendant as to date when she was to report to prison authorities. While defendant argued that such evidence should have been excluded under attorney-client privilege, Ct. found that said privilege did not apply, where defendant’s counsel was merely forwarding public information that had been contained in court order. Fact that defendant’s counsel had alerted defendant to surrender date did not transform said information into confidential legal advice.

In prosecution on drug conspiracy and firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting state’s motion in limine to preclude defendants from presenting entrapment defense, where instant charges arose out of police scheme to recruit individuals to rob fictional drug stash house that officials told defendants contained 15 kilograms of cocaine. While defendants argued that they were improperly induced to join scheme through promises of obtaining large quantity of cocaine, as well as “hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Ct. found that such promises did not qualify as improper inducements where said promises presented same temptation faced by anyone contemplating robbery and was nothing more than ordinary opportunity to commit crime. Moreover, record showed that officers told defendants that they would recruit others if defendants wanted to back out of scheme. Also, defendants’ predisposition to commit crime was established by one defendant’s enthusiasm to proceed with plan, as well as another defendant’s participation in generation of plan.