U.S. v. Dunkel

Decision Date08 March 1991
Docket NumberNo. 89-1841,89-1841
Citation927 F.2d 955
Parties-637, 91-1 USTC P 50,216 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James C. DUNKEL, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

John G. McKenzie, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lisa K. Osofsky, Office of the U.S. Atty., Rockford, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.

Donald W. MacPherson, MacPherson & McCarville, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.

Before POSNER and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, Senior District Judge. *

PER CURIAM.

James C. Dunkel, who decided that income taxes are voluntary and elected not to contribute, was convicted of tax evasion and wilful failure to file tax returns. Consistent with this circuit's precedents, the district court withdrew from the jury certain defenses that are objectively unreasonable. We affirmed Dunkel's conviction. 900 F.2d 105 (7th Cir.1990).

United States v. Cheek, 882 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir.1989), barred seven of Dunkel's theories. When reversing that decision, Cheek v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991), the Supreme Court removed two items from the list but left the other five. It held that district judges may rebuff defenses based on erroneous constitutional beliefs (such as that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified) but that defendants may argue that their mistaken interpretations of the tax laws (such as that wages are not income) defeat the mental state necessary to the offense, no matter how unfounded those beliefs may be. The Supreme Court then told us to reconsider Dunkel's case in light of Cheek. --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 747, 112 L.Ed.2d 768 (1991).

The government contends that Dunkel's conviction is not affected by Cheek. First, the prosecutor contends, Dunkel waived any objection to the district court's ruling by burying it in a single unreasoned paragraph of his brief on appeal. A skeletal "argument", really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim. United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1230 (7th Cir.1990). Especially not when the brief presents a passel of other arguments, as Dunkel's did. Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs. But claims of waiver may themselves be waived, Wilson v. O'Leary, 895 F.2d 378, 384 (7th Cir.1990), and the United States did just that--not in this court, but in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Dunkel's petition for certiorari challenged this court's treatment of objectively unreasonable beliefs. The Solicitor General could have resisted this petition by arguing that Dunkel had not preserved the point. Instead he urged the Supreme Court to hold the case for whatever disposition Cheek made appropriate. The Court did so and has told us to review the case in light of Cheek. The whole process has been so much wasted motion if, as the government now contends, the claim was not properly preserved here. The Supreme Court enforces a rule that claims of waiver must be presented no later than the brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari or are themselves waived. Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 383-84, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1201-02, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989); Bowen v. American Hospital Ass'n, 476 U.S. 610, 629 n. 14, 106 S.Ct. 2101, 2113 n. 14, 90 L.Ed.2d 584 (1986); Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 815-16, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 2431-32, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985). That rule would lose much force--and could convert the Court's efforts into an advisory opinion--if claims of waiver that had been forfeited in the Supreme Court could be revived on remand. The government has missed its chance to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2040 cases
  • Richards v. Whitley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • February 2, 2021
    ...Valvanis v. Milgroom, Civ. No. 06-00144 JMS-KSC, 2008 WL 2164652, at *6 n.13 (D. Haw. May 22, 2008) (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991)); see also Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting that same "familiar maxim" and—......
  • Williams v. Eastside Lumberyard and Supply Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois
    • March 23, 2001
    ...battles, not a plaintiffs' attorney. He is neither required to hunt down arguments plaintiffs keep camouflaged, see United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991) ("Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs."), nor required to address perfunctory and undevel......
  • Bushrod v. Dist. of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 22, 2021
    ...Potter v. District of Columbia , 558 F.3d 542, 553 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Williams, J., concurring) (quoting United States v. Dunkel , 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)). The Court will forge ahead and determine the relevant set of facts, which establish that no constitutional viola......
  • Swanigan v. Trotter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 4, 2009
    ...claims. Swanigan is reminded that "[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the record. United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991); see also Albrechtsen v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisc. Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 436 (7th Cir.2002) ("Courts are entitled to assi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Appellate Practice in Nebraska: a Thorough, Though Not Exhaustive, Primer in How to Do it and How to Be More Effective
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 39, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...404. See supra notes 205-08 and accompanying text (concerning page limitations for appellate briefs). 405. See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) ("Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs."). 406. Certainly there are no iron-clad rules of orga......
  • Chapter 29 Legal-Writing Ethics
    • United States
    • New York State Bar Association The Legal Writer - Writing it Right (NY)
    • Invalid date
    ...N.Y.S.2d 13 (2004).[488] . See Duncan v. AT&T Communications, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 232, 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).[489] . United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).[490] . Except when the other side is absent. [491] . Margaret R. Milsky, Ethics and Legal Writing,......
  • Autopsy of a Trusts and Estates Case: the Appellate Doctor Is in
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Trusts & Estates Quarterly (CLA) No. 24-4, June 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...Ingrande v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 2016 WL 703601, at *6, as modified Feb. 29, 2016, citing United States v. Dunkel (7th Cir. 1991) 927 F.2d 955, 956; see also Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 CalApp.3d 1012, 1050.15. David v. Hermann (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 672, 685, relying on Davey v.......
  • The Proper Use of Animal References in Law
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 46-8, September 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...class of vertebrates— monotremes (egg-laying mammals). [9] Johnny Cash, “I Walk the Line” (Columbia Records 1964). [10] U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 756 (7th Cir. 1991). [11] Nicholas Acoustics & Specialty Co. v. H&M Constr. Co. Inc., 695 F.2d 839, 846–47 (5th Cir. 1983). [12] Wright et al......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT