IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. Criminal No. 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS-1 

PETER HENDRICKSON 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO THE UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND/OR NEW TRIAL

Introduction

On November 3, 2009, Defendant Peter Hendrickson filed a Motion for Judgment of 

Acquittal or New Trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c) and 33(a), and supplemented this Motion on 

February 26, 2010. On March 19, 2010, the United States filed a Response, and on March 26, 

2010, Mr. Hendrickson filed a Reply. Mr. Hendrickson respectfully submits the following 

supplement to his Reply, concerning an important matter unfortunately overlooked previously. 

Reason for This Supplement 

It has belatedly come to Mr. Hendrickson’s attention that the DoJ misrepresents the

instructions given to the jury as to the definition of "employee" (and thus, that of "wages") in its

Response to Mr. Hendrickson's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or New Trial under 

Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c) and 33(a). On pages 7 and 8 of its Response, the DoJ says that, 

"The Court gave the following instruction to the jury:

 

As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term “wages” means all 

payments for services performed by an employee for his employer. The term “wages” 

applies to all employees and is not restricted to persons working for the government.

 

1 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 91 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 3
As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term “employer” means the

person for whom an individual performs or performed any service of whatever nature, as

the employee of such person.

 

This definition applies to all employers, whether private or government. As it relates to 

the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term "employee" means any individual 

who performs these services. 

Tr. 788-789” 

However, the actual instruction concerning "employee" given by the Court to the jury was: 

"As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term “employee” means 

any individual who performs services and who has a legal employer-employee 

relationship with the person for whom he performs these services. 26 U.S.C. § 

3121(d)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c)." (The section references were omitted when this 

instruction was read to the jury by the Court, but were in the written version.) 

This DoJ misrepresentation of the "employee" instruction, in which the phrase "legal employeremployee relationship" has been left out, has the effect of obscuring the principal issues 

concerning the meaning of this phrase, and the fact that it went undefined and unexplained to the 

jury. Both are highly significant issues in the consideration of Mr. Hendrickson’s Motion and the 

validity of the verdict. Those issues are discussed in Mr. Hendrickson’s Supplement to the

Motion filed on February 26, 2010, on pp. 7- 8 and 13-18. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jack R. Hendrickson, Jr. 

Dated: March 30, 2010 By: /s/ Jack R. Hendrickson, Jr.________________ 

Jack R. Hendrickson, Jr., Esquire 

Attorney I.D. No. 29193 

3003 Miller 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Telephone: (734) 276-3572 

E-Mail: rhendrickson@starpakgroup.com

Attorney for Defendant Peter Hendrickson

2 

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 91 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 3
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on March 30, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing paper and 

related attachments with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the following: 

Michael C. Leibson 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

211 W. Fort St., Ste. 2001 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Michael.leibson@usdoj.gov

and 

Mark F. Daly, MA Bar No. 640581 

United States Department of Justice, Tax Division 

P.O. Box 972 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

mark.f.daly@usdoj.gov

Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 91 Filed 03/30/10 Page 3 of 3