Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 57-month term of incarceration on tax evasion and giving false statements to IRS agent charges arising out of defendant’s failure to file and pay income taxes on defendant’s business income where said sentence was based in part on enhancements for failing to report income exceeding $10,000 from criminal activity and for obstruction of justice. Enhancement for failure to report income was proper where: (1) defendant failed to report $45,000 that his wife had received as part of fraudulent mortgage loan application in which defendant falsely told bank officials that his wife was business employee; (2) defendant diverted business income towards wife’s home that enabled defendant to avoid tax assessment and lien; and (3) instant mortgage fraud was relevant conduct to charged offense. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly impose obstruction of justice enhancement based upon defendant’s false statements made to IRS agents that induced them to temporarily close their investigation into extent of defendant’s business income.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition that challenged his death sentence on murder charge on grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to seek trial court order to have spectators remove buttons displaying sympathy for murder victim; (2) failing to meaningfully convey prosecutor's plea bargain that would have allowed defendant to serve life sentence without parole; and (3) failing to present second expert to more fully describe defendant's mental condition. At time of trial, defendant did not have constitutional right to have said buttons removed from spectators. Moreover, defendant failed to establish any prejudice to claim that trial counsel failed to meaningfully explain plea bargain offer where trial court indicated that she would not have accepted such plea since defendant had previously indicated that he could not admit to factual basis for said plea. Also, defendant failed to present any expert testimony to challenge rational tactical decision by trial counsel to present only one expert witness to explain defendant's mental condition or to support claim that jury would have been more favorably disposed to opinion of defendant's proposed second expert witness. (Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing 78-month term of incarceration on unlawful possession of firearm charges even though defendant argued that he was entitled to below-guideline sentence because he was 70 years old at time of sentence. Instant sentence was reasonable where record showed that defendant was in good health at time of sentencing and was physically capable of continuing indefinitely to engage in unlawful activities. Ct. further observed that defendant’s age and physical condition did not turn his sentence into de facto life sentence.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury's guilty verdict on tax evasion charges stemming from defendant's failure to file income taxes for almost 20 years. Dist. Ct. properly rejected defendant's request for special jury instruction where instant pattern instruction properly defined willfulness, and where defendant could not attribute tax deficiency covering almost 20 years to mere negligence. Record also showed that defendant hid his income by commingling his personal and business accounts and using false Employer Identification number, as well as Social Security number of his deceased business partner.

In prosecution on charges that defendants enticed under-aged girls to engage in interstate prostitution, Dist. Ct. did not err in precluding defendants from cross-examining one witness as to whether she had engaged in prostitution prior to becoming prostitute for defendants. Evidence of prior prostitution was not relevant as to issue as to whether witness had been deceived by defendants or whether witness consented to either being beaten by defendants and/or being denied share of profits for witness' services as alleged in indictment. Remand, though, was required with respect to one defendant's sentence where Dist. Ct. orally indicated that defendant would receive life sentence without parole plus consecutive term-of-years sentences for other charges, while written judgment indicated that all sentences would be served concurrently.

Defendant was not entitled to new trial on drug distribution charges even though govt. agent had failed to record and relay exculpatory evidence stemming from conversation agent had with third-party, who indicated that he, as opposed to defendant, was totally responsible for certain drug sale. While instant failure to relay exculpatory evidence constituted Brady violation, no reversible error occurred where defense counsel learned of said evidence at start of trial and was able to thoroughly elicit from third-party at trial his testimony that defendant was innocent of charged offense. Ct. further noted that if defendant counsel needed more time to conduct investigation into exculpatory evidence, defense counsel should have sought continuation of trial.