United States v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 19 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. 16256.,16256.
• Citation: 398 F.2d 29
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

398 F.2d 29 (1968)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16256.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

July 19, 1968.

Charles Durham, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Thomas A. Foran, U. S. Atty., Michael P. Siavelis, Atty., Chicago, Ill., for appellee; John Peter Lulinski, Gerald M. Werksman, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel.

Before HASTINGS, Circuit Judge, KNOCH, Senior Circuit Judge, and SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.

KNOCH, Senior Circuit Judge.

The defendant-appellant, Thomas Johnson, was convicted in a jury trial on a three-count indictment charging violations of Title 26, U.S.Code, § 7214(a) (4):

(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents. — Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States — * * * (4) who conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the United States; * * *

The jury found the defendant guilty. He was sentenced to serve eighteen months' imprisonment.

The indictment charged that the defendant, being an employee of the Internal Revenue Service and acting in connection with the Revenue Laws conspired with James Storey, Tommie Smith and Leonard Dickerson to defraud the United States by wilfully aiding in the preparation and presentation of income tax returns materially false and fraudulent in the improper claim of unwarranted exemptions.

The three unindicted co-conspirators testified as witnesses. None of the returns were filled out at the Revenue offices but at the homes of the defendant, the witnesses or their relatives. At least two of the witnesses said they knew that defendant was employed by the Revenue Service and the third said he had been informed by his brother that the defendant was so employed. They all testified they were advised by the defendant respecting exemptions which they were not entitled to claim and that they relied on his experience. They relied on him to take their tax returns down to the Revenue office, where defendant was employed, for process. As one witness put it: defendant "would be able to push it through the next morning, he took it in to work with him. * * *" Some said that defendant made no specific charge for his services in preparing returns. They paid the defendant $5 or $10 for his service.

The defendant testified that he filled out returns solely on the information given him by the witnesses and that the circumstances were such that in many cases the statements of the witnesses seemed to be corroborated e. g., defendant saw children in the home of one witness, saw him pay for their clothing and food, and thus accepted the assertion that these children were the taxpayer's dependents.

The Assistant Chief of Returns and Receipts Branch in the District Office of the Chicago District testified that during the period 1959 to 1963, when he was section chief in the Returns and Receipts Branch, defendant was successively employed as supervisory mail clerk, senior verification clerk, and tax examiner; that as a verification clerk, defendant was responsible for reviewing income tax returns to ascertain whether they were single or joint and whether they contained questionable exemptions, that as tax examiner his work also entailed review of the number of exemptions on a little more skilled level than as verification clerk.

The defendant testified that his duties as an examiner required him to check for questionable exemptions and to instruct the forty to one hundred fifty personnel under his supervision. He denied instructing any of them with respect to any returns which he personally prepared.

The defendant argues that the issue of credibility of the witnesses was vital to his defense and that the jury were not instructed on his theory of the case because the instruction which he tendered on "informers" was rejected. The Court stated that this was not an informer case. We agree. The three unindicted witnesses all testified that they had been called in and questioned by Internal Revenue officers concerning their returns. They had each suffered penalty assessments in amounts greatly in excess of the refunds they had initially received on the basis of the false returns.

The instruction sought to be given read:

The testimony of an informer who provides evidence against a defendant for pay, or for immunity from punishment, or for personal advantage or vindication, must be examined and weighed by the jury with greater care than the testimony of an ordinary witness. The jury must determine whether the informer\'s testimony has been affected by his interest, or his prejudice against the defendant.

None of the three witnesses provided evidence for pay, immunity from prosecution or personal advantage. There was no evidence to support this instruction. Bird v. United States, 1902, 187 U.S. 118, 23 S.Ct. 42, 47, 47 L.Ed. 100; Beck v. United States, 10 Cir., 1962, 305 F.2d 595, 599, cert. den. 371 U.S. 890, 83 S.Ct. 186, 9 L.Ed.2d 123. When in chambers the District Judge stated that the proffered instruction was inapplicable, defendant's counsel merely stated that he was not going to withdraw it. In this Court, defendant conjectures that the three witnesses might have looked to be rewarded with a share if a fine had been imposed on defendant...