The Fifth Circuit recently allowed an ex-wife's testimony about conversations she had with her ex-husband about his tax evasion to be admitted at the husband's trial under the joint crimes exception to the martial communications privilege even thought he ex-wife was not charged with tax evasion herself. United States v. Miller, No. 08-31168 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 2009). The ex-husband did not help himself at trial:
Miller was the sole witness for the defense. He testified that in 1995, after being audited by the IRS, he joined Save-A-Patriot. He also studied materials provided by Save-A-Patriot. Based on his study of the materials and of the Internal Revenue Code, he believed that the income tax system was voluntary and that he was not required to pay taxes, though he had filed tax returns in the past. Because of this deeply held belief, he did not file tax returns for tax years 1995 through 2001. ...
Mrs. Miller also testified that Miller decided not to file taxes after joining Save-a-Patriot because he believed that filing taxes was not necessary and unconstitutional. This statement is not privileged because, as noted, it involves discussion of joint criminal activity. ... Further, it is not prejudicial because it is consistent with Miller’s testimony that he had a good faith belief, based on his reliance on Save-A-Patriot materials, that he did not have to pay taxes.
Miller was the sole witness for the defense. He testified that in 1995, after being audited by the IRS, he joined Save-A-Patriot. He also studied materials provided by Save-A-Patriot. Based on his study of the materials and of the Internal Revenue Code, he believed that the income tax system was voluntary and that he was not required to pay taxes, though he had filed tax returns in the past. Because of this deeply held belief, he did not file tax returns for tax years 1995 through 2001. ...
Mrs. Miller also testified that Miller decided not to file taxes after joining Save-a-Patriot because he believed that filing taxes was not necessary and unconstitutional. This statement is not privileged because, as noted, it involves discussion of joint criminal activity. ... Further, it is not prejudicial because it is consistent with Miller’s testimony that he had a good faith belief, based on his reliance on Save-A-Patriot materials, that he did not have to pay taxes.
Posts
