U.S. v. Chagra, 83-1202
| Decision Date | 15 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1202,83-1202 |
| Citation | 754 F.2d 1181 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth Nichols CHAGRA and Jamiel Alexander Chagra, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Warren Burnett, Larry Zinn, Galveston, Tex., for E. Chagra.
Oscar B. Goodman, Las Vegas, Nev., (Court appointed), for J. Chagra.
Annette R. Ouintana, Las Vegas, Nev. (Court appointed), for defendants-appellants.
Edward C. Prado, U.S.Atty., LeRoy Morgan Jahn, W. Ray Jahn, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before GEE, REAVLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Jamiel Alexander Chagra and Elizabeth Nichols Chagra were convicted of attempting to evade the payment of federal income tax in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7201 (1982). The trial was before a judge, sitting without a jury, on stipulated facts. Finding no merit in this appeal, we affirm.
In April 1979, the Chagras filed a Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service Form 1040, United States Individual Income Tax Return, in the Western District of Texas. The tax return reflected a balance of $629,964.60 in income tax due. The United States attempted to collect the tax through notices sent to the Chagras, but received no response. To obtain payment of the tax, the United States seized various assets owned by the Chagras and acquired them by forfeiture.
From October 1980 until January 1981, Jamiel was placed under court-ordered electronic surveillance while imprisoned at the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. During this time, several conversations were recorded between Jamiel and his wife, Elizabeth, and between Jamiel and his brother, Joseph. The information obtained from these conversations aided the United States in gathering the evidence necessary to convict Chagra.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress the fruits of the recorded conversations. As explained in United States v. Harrelson, --- F.2d ---- (5th Cir.1985) 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(5) (1982), requires the interception of privileged communications to be minimized. The Chagras contend that the marital privilege covers their conversations. Jamiel asserts the attorney-client privilege in protection of the conversations he had with his brother, who was an attorney. Like the appellants in Harrelson, the Chagras contend that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Harrelson
...754 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir.1985). Jamiel and Elizabeth Chagra were separately convicted of criminal tax charges. United States v. Chagra, 754 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir.1985). We affirm these convictions in separate opinions today. We likewise affirm all convictions on the instant appeal save that of E......
-
U.S. v. Hook
...assumed that concealment comprised a Section 7201 violation on the way to determining other issues, see, e.g., United States v. Chagra, 754 F.2d 1181, 1182 (5th Cir.1985) (evidentiary issue); Cohen v. United States, 297 F.2d 760 (9th Cir.) (numerous issues), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 865, 82 S......
-
Facebook, Inc. v. State
...(discussing "privileged communications between husband-wife, attorney-client and doctor-patient"); 17 see also United States v. Chagra, 754 F.2d 1181, 1182 (5th Cir. 1985) ("[The Federal Wiretap Act] requires the interception of privileged communications to be minimized."). Under state law,......
-
U.S. v. Miller
...about crimes in which they are jointly participating ...." Ramirez, 145 F.3d at 355 (internal quotation omitted); United States v. Chagra, 754 F.2d 1181, 1182 (5th Cir.1985). The testifying spouse need not be charged with a crime, so long as the testimony conveys joint criminal activity. Ra......