Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-09023/USCOURTS-ca10-91-09023-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph A. Bonacci
Appellant
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L L D 

United States Court of AppealE Tenth Cir'!uit TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOSEPH A. BONACCI, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

DEC 1 5 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER Clerk . 

No. 91-9023 

(T.C . 42 883-85 ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and O'CONNOR, 

District Judge.** 

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("IRS") notified 

petitioner-appellant Bonacci ( 11 taxpayer 11 ) that he owed federal 

income tax deficiencies and additions to tax for the years 1979 

through 1984. Taxpayer petitioned the United States Tax Court for 

review of the IRS's determinations. Following trial, the Tax 

Court entered a decision on December 8, 1989 sustaining the income 

tax deficiencies and additions to tax. The Tax Court denied the 

taxpayer's motion to vacate the decision o n January 26, 1990 . 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case , res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** Honorable Earl E. O'Connor, Senior District Judge, United 

States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-9023 Document: 010110152139 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 1 
Mr. Bonacci filed a notice of appeal to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 16, 

1990. The District of Columbia Circuit granted an IRS motion to 

transfer the appeal to this court on December 5, 1991. On appeal, 

Taxpayer requests a new trial, claiming violations of his right to 

meaningful access to the courts and his right to cross examine a 

witness -- IRS Special Agent Larry Burnett. We exercise 

jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a) and affirm. 

I. 

Taxpayer failed to file timely tax returns for the years 1979 

through 1983. An organized crime drug enforcement task force 

investigated petitioner's activities from 1983 until June, 1985, 

when it presented its information to a grand jury. The task force 

consisted of agents from the IRS, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and 

various state and local agencies. A grand jury indicted the 

taxpayer on June 27, 1985. On June 28, 1985, a United States 

Magistrate Judge issued a search warrant that was supported by two 

affidavits, one of which was prepared by Agent Burnett. After the 

search warrant was executed on July 1, 1985, the taxpayer's seized 

records were made available to the IRS. 

On July 8, 1985, the IRS mailed the taxpayer a notice of 

jeopardy assessment for the years 1979 through 1984. On July 10, 

1985, a grand jury issued a second indictment. Taxpayer was 

arrested and detained in a Utah jail when the IRS issued its 

statutory notice of deficiency on September 4, 1985. Taxpayer 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 91-9023 Document: 010110152139 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 2 
petitioned the Tax Court for review on November 29, 1985. On 

January 9, 1986, Bonacci pled guilty to four counts of the two 

indictments, including two counts for illegal possession and 

distribution of drugs. He received a ten-year sentence and was 

incarcerated in Texas. He was transferred from Texas to Utah to 

attend the Tax Court trial. 

When the taxpayer's trial began on January 8, 1987, he 

appeared prose and asserted that he was not prepared to proceed 

because the Texas prison provided him inadequate access to his own 

files, a law library, a telephone, a typewriter, and visitors. 

The court continued the trial until March 11, 1987 to give Mr. 

Bonacci time to prepare and told him to notify the court if he had 

trouble accessing his documents or otherwise preparing his case. 

Before the trial adjourned, however, the IRS called three 

witnesses. The first witness was Agent Burnett. After Burnett 

gave his name, business address, and length of employment with the 

IRS, the court interrupted and indicated it would prefer that the 

IRS proceed with witnesses from out of state or those who s e 

testimony would help Mr. Bonacci evaluate settlement prospects. 

The court indicated that Mr. Bonacci could postpone his crossexamination until the trial resumed. FBI Special Agent Brent 

Palmer was not called to testify . 

After the trial recessed in January, the taxpayer was 

incarcerated in Oklahoma until the trial resumed. During this 

interim period, the taxpayer moved to exclude the testimony of 

Agents Burnett and Palmer . When the trial resumed on March 11, 

- 3-

Appellate Case: 91-9023 Document: 010110152139 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 3 
1987, Bonacci inquired about the status of his motion . The court 

responded: 

With regard to witnesses Palmer and Burnett, we will 

address the relevancy of their testimony, the 

appropriateness of their testimony, if and when they are 

called during the course of the trial. You can object 

at the time they are called, if they are called, and 

state your grounds therefor at that time. 

II. 

Mr. Bonacci argues first that he was denied access to the 

courts because of the conditions of his incarceration while he was 

preparing for trial. In particular, the taxpayer claims that he 

was denied adequate access to his own records, a copy machine, and 

a telephone to make noncollect calls. 

It is well established that inmates have a constitutional 

right t o adequate, effective, and meaningful access to the courts. 

See Bounds v . Smith, 43 0 U.S . 817, 822 (1977); Ramos v . Lamm, 639 

F.2d 559, 583 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S . 1041 

(1981). This right encompasses all the means required for a fair 

hearing . Nordgren v . Milliken, 762 F.2d 851, 853, cert . denied, 

474 U.S . 1032 (1985) . The record indicates that none of the 

taxpayer's rights were violated. The judge continued the t r ial to 

allow the taxpayer more time to review his own records and prepare 

f o r trial. During the interim period befo re the trial resumed, 

some of the taxpayer's documents were mailed to Oklahoma where he 

was incarcerated and other documents were in his daughter's 

custody and could have been mailed to him. After the trial 

resumed, the court arranged f or Bonacci's relevant d o cuments t o be 

c opied and allowed Bonacci t o submit doc uments after the trial t o 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 91-9023 Document: 010110152139 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 4 
supplement the file. The taxpayer filed several motions and 

received a full and fair hearing at which he called a number of 

witnesses and filed several exhibits. 

Taxpayer also argues that he was denied the right to crossexamine Agent Burnett. The IRS did not recall Burnett, who was 

attending a training session in Georgia, when the trial resumed in 

March. The court declined to continue the trial and schedule 

another hearing where Burnett could be questioned. Taxpayer 

apparently wanted to elicit testimony about whether Burnett's 

affidavit in support of the search warrant was based on grand jury 

testimony in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6{e). In place of 

Agent Burnett, the IRS called FBI Agent Palmer to testify about 

the 6{e) allegations. Palmer had been the lead agent in the 

organized crime drug enforcement task force and had presented the 

task force's information to the grand jury. He testified that the 

affidavits submitted in support of the search warrant for 

Bonacci's home were based entirely on information obtained through 

an investigation conducted prior to the grand jury rather than 

information obtained through the grand jury. Taxpayer crossexamined Agent Palmer about the 6{e) allegations and recalled him 

the next day for further questioning. 

The trial court has broad discretion in setting the limits of 

cross-examination, Leeper v. United States, 446 F.2d 281, 288 

(10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1021 (1972), and deciding 

to grant or deny a continuance, Scott v. Reynolds, 975 F.2d 1473, 

1475 (10th Cir. 1992) . The judge did not abuse his discretion in 

this case where: (1) he determined the evidence was legally 

- 5-

Appellate Case: 91-9023 Document: 010110152139 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 5 
irrelevant, (2 ) Agent Burnett never gave substantive testimony on 

direct examination, (3 ) Agent Palmer testified to the relevant 

issue and was cross-examined by the taxpayer, and (4 ) the taxpayer 

had already moved to exclude Burnett's testimony . 

The judgment of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED and Appellant 's 

request for a new trial is DENIED. 

-6-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-9023 Document: 010110152139 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 6