Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01717/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01717-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene A. McNeally
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1717

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Eugene A. McNeally, * District of Nebraska.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: February 24, 2005

Filed: March 10, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eugene McNeally appeals his five convictions for willfully failing to file

income-tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, and his eleven convictions for

knowingly making or using false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of a

federal agency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3). A jury returned the verdicts

after a five-day jury trial, and the district court1

 later sentenced McNeally to

concurrent terms of 10 months’ imprisonment for willfully failing to file tax returns,

and 12 months’ imprisonment for making false statements. On appeal, McNeally

Appellate Case: 04-1717 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2005 Entry ID: 1877124 
-2-

argues that there was insufficient evidence that he acted willfully in failing to file his

tax returns. He also asserts that the evidence was insufficient to show that his

statements were false, and made knowingly and in a matter within the jurisdiction of

a federal agency. Finally, he challenges the court’s refusal to strike a juror.

When viewed in a light most favorable to the verdicts, we believe the evidence

is sufficient to show that McNeally willfully failed to file his income tax returns for

1995 through 1999, particularly given his admissions at trial that he had filed federal

tax returns in the past, and had used his wife’s bank account to maintain his

anonymity. See United States v. Espino, 317 F.3d 788, 791-92 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard for sufficiency-of-evidence challenges); United States v. Brooks, 174 F.3d

950, 955 & n.5 (8th Cir. 1999) (willfulness in criminal tax context requires proof

defendant knew of and intentionally violated legal duty; proof that defendant filed tax

returns in prior years showed he knew of duty, and his efforts to dissociate himself

from his property and income by establishing bank account in name of trust belied

good-faith defense).

We also believe the trial evidence supports the false-statement convictions.

McNeally repeatedly informed several contractors for whom he had performed

construction services that he was a nonresident alien, thus prompting many of them

not to file a required Form 1099 with the Internal Revenue Service. The evidence at

trial, however, established that McNeally was born in Minnesota, lived in Nebraska

during the years at issue, and had no citizenship other than that of the United States.

See United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 68-70 (1984) (defendant must have

knowledge of falsity of statements, not knowledge of statement’s materiality to

federal agency involved); United States v. Baker, 200 F.3d 558, 561 (8th Cir. 2000)

(materiality inquiry under § 1001 “focuses on whether the false statement had a

natural tendency to influence or was capable of influencing the government agency

or official”); United States v. Popow, 821 F.2d 483, 486 (8th Cir. 1987) (false

statements need not be made directly to government agency to establish jurisdiction

Appellate Case: 04-1717 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2005 Entry ID: 1877124 
-3-

under § 1001; instead, they need only relate to matter in which federal agency has

power to act).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the

potentially suspect juror. The court reminded the juror of his obligation to maintain

an open mind until all the evidence was presented. Before the case was submitted to

the jury, the court stated – without objection by McNeally – that it would talk to the

juror outside the presence of counsel and would let him remain on the jury only if,

based on this discussion, the court believed the juror had an open mind about the

case. See United States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069, 1078-79 (8th Cir. 2001) (although

removal of juror is appropriate if juror has formed opinion as to issue to be tried, it

is sufficient if juror can lay aside pretrial impression or opinion and render verdict

based on evidence presented in court); United States v. Duke, 255 F.3d 656, 659 (8th

Cir. 2001) (rulings on juror qualifications will not be disturbed absent clear showing

of abuse of discretion vested in district court); United States v. Campbell, 845 F.2d

782, 785 (8th Cir. 1988) (district court has discretion to question juror whose

qualifications have come into doubt during trial to insure impartiality of jury).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1717 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2005 Entry ID: 1877124