United States v. DeVaughn, Crim. No. K-75-0112.
Decision Date | 26 March 1976 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. K-75-0112. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. John A. DeVAUGHN. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Jervis S. Finney, U. S. Atty., Herbert Better and Jeffrey S. White, Asst. U. S. Attys., D.Md., Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
Peter G. Angelos, Stephen B. Caplis and Jack Rubin, Baltimore, Md., for defendant.
The defendant, John A. DeVaughn, is indicted in this case under thirty counts charging, inter alia, extortions under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, income tax violations under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and § 7206(1), and perjuries under 18 U.S.C. § 1621. Three counts, namely, Counts 8, 9 and 10, pertain to charges pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1621. The defendant has moved to quash those counts of the indictment, and in the alternative to suppress the use by the Government of a transcript of a question and answer proceeding at which defendant made certain statements upon which those latter charges are based.
On May 24, 1973, the defendant DeVaughn1 and his wife, Carolyn M. DeVaughn, in the status of taxpayers, were asked to come to the office of the Intelligence Division, Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter IRS), Baltimore, Maryland. At that time, questions were asked by a Special Agent of the IRS and answers were given by both Mr. and Mrs. DeVaughn. The interview was recorded. Both taxpayers were represented by counsel who was present throughout the question and answer proceeding. This Court has previously determined, as set forth orally on the record in a pre-trial proceeding, that the defendants were appropriately advised of their "Miranda"-type rights. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. DeVaughn during or subsequent to the question and answer proceeding requested the opportunity to examine or to correct the transcript of that proceeding.
At the time of the said proceeding on May 24, 1973, there were in force and effect the following provisions of the Handbook for Special Agents utilized by the IRS:
Additionally, at that time there was in force and effect the following policy statement of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue:
Defendant's primary contention herein with regard to the above-cited provisions of the Handbook and the Policy Statement is that those provisions required the IRS specifically to inform the DeVaughns in May 1973, as taxpayers who had been subjected to a question and answer proceeding, that each of them had the right to examine and correct the transcript thereof. The regulations, on their face, do not themselves so provide.2 Defendant has secondarily taken the position that as a matter of practice and policy the IRS in May 1973, and thereafter, if not before, did in many cases inform a taxpayer of his right to see his transcript and correct it. This Court has held an evidentiary hearing with regard to that latter contention and has made findings on the record which, in the opinion of this Court, have called upon and continue to call upon this Court to find and to hold that the IRS had no such uniform and customary policy and that it did not discriminate against or treat in an unequal or unfair manner the defendant as a taxpayer as opposed to other taxpayers.
Defendant's third line of contention is that the failure of IRS officials to publish in the Federal Register any of the above referenced provisions of the Handbook or Policy Statement, and/or to make said documents available to the public on or before May 24, 1973, was violative of the provisions of the Federal Register Act and of the Freedom of Information Act.
The Federal Register Act, 44 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq., provides, in pertinent part:
5 U.S.C. § 552, the Freedom of Information Act, provided, on May 24, 1973, in pertinent part:3
On or shortly after December 28, 1973, Policy Statement P-9-31 was placed in the Freedom of Information Reading Room of the IRS. On November 13, 1974, the IRS Handbook for Special Agents, which Handbook included sections 246.541:(1)(j), 246.6:(1), and 246.6:(3), was transmitted to the Director of the Public Affairs Division of the IRS for placement in the said Reading Room. At no time have the said Policy Statement or the said sections of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Usery v. BOARD OF ED. OF BALTIMORE CTY., Civ. No. K-76-672.
...are not critical to the resolution of the Board's Accardi defense, that question need not be reached. 26 See also United States v. DeVaughn, 414 F.Supp. 774, (D.Md.1976), conviction affd. without comment as to the Walden-type issue in a per curiam unpublished opinion, 556 F.2d 575 (4th Cir.......
-
Dean v. U.S., 3:03CV65/MCR/MD.
...Sant, 1990 WL 21279; Reimer v. United States, 1990 WL 85686 (D.Hawai'i 1990), aff'd, 919 F.2d 145 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. DeVaughn, 414 F.Supp. 774, 779 (D.Md.1976) (IRS Handbook and Policy Statement need not be published in Federal Register), aff'd, 556 F.2d 575 (4th Cir.), cert. ......
-
Watson v. Califano, 78 Civ. 107 (RWS).
...affected by the lack of publication. See generally Hogg v. United States, 428 F.2d 274, 280 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. DeVaughn, 414 F.Supp. 774 (D.Md.1976), aff'd, 556 F.2d 575 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 954, 98 S.Ct. 479, 54 L.Ed.2d 312 (1977). Although plaintiffs may be co......
-
Precision Window Mfg., Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...18 U.S.C. § 1621 (1988); United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 573-74, 57 S.Ct. 535, 538-39, 81 L.Ed. 808 (1937); United States v. DeVaughn, 414 F.Supp. 774, 780 (D.Md.1976), aff'd without opinion, 556 F.2d 575 (4th Cir.1977). Moreover, even if Sitzes could analogize his retraction to the ......