Source: http://openjurist.org/90/f3d/1409
Timestamp: 2016-02-10 09:12:30
Document Index: 690166667

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6531', '§ 6531', '§ 7212', '§ 7212', '§ 6531', '§ 6531', '§ 45', '§ 1961', '§ 2314', '§ 1961', '§ 1', '§ 9722', '§ 7212', '§ 6531']

90 F3d 1409 United States v. Workinger | OpenJurist
90 F. 3d 1409 - United States v. Workinger HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series 90 F.3d
90 F3d 1409 United States v. Workinger 90 F.3d 1409
78 A.F.T.R.2d 96-5710, 96-2 USTC P 50,402,44 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 944,96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5423,96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8827
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.William Lee WORKINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
Argued and Submitted March 8, 1996.Decided July 23, 1996.
The district court's conclusion regarding the applicability of a statute of limitations is a matter of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Manning, 56 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir.1995). In construing a statute, our court's objective "is to ascertain the congressional intent and give effect to the legislative will." Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 713, 95 S.Ct. 1893, 1898, 44 L.Ed.2d 525 (1975). This court must first determine whether the plain language makes its meaning reasonably clear. Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99, 104-05, 113 S.Ct. 1119, 1122-23, 122 L.Ed.2d 457 (1993). If it is clear, that is the end of the inquiry. See Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 482, 110 S.Ct. 2499, 2502, 110 L.Ed.2d 438 (1990). "In ascertaining the plain meaning of the statute, [we] must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole." K-Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291, 108 S.Ct. 1811, 1818, 100 L.Ed.2d 313 (1988).
A district court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Manning, 56 F.3d at 1196. "Evidentiary rulings will be reversed for abuse of discretion only if such nonconstitutional error more likely than not affected the verdict." United States v. Corona, 34 F.3d 876, 882 (9th Cir.1994).
Thus, in § 6531(1) Congress applied the six-year limitations period to offenses other than those mentioned in sections which were labeled "fraud," if those offenses did reflect fraudulent activity. In United States v. Grainger, 346 U.S. 235, 73 S.Ct. 1069, 97 L.Ed. 1575 (1953), the Supreme Court construed language of the Suspension Act, which was rather similar to the language of § 6531(1). That Act suspended "the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any offense ... involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof in any manner...." Id. at 242, 73 S.Ct. at 1073.
Id. at 244, 73 S.Ct. at 1074. Here, as there, Congress has expressed a similar breadth of purpose.
Workinger asserts, however, that the offenses under § 7212(a) do not necessarily include fraud as an "essential ingredient." With that we must agree. Still, it would be an unusual case where a person would corruptly obstruct or impede the administration of the tax laws, without having that activity include some element of fraud. The difficulty, of course, is that corruption and fraud are not the same, nor is the latter necessarily included in every instance of the former. As we have said, "An act is 'corrupt' within the meaning of § 7212(a) if it is performed with the intention to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or for another." United States v. Hanson, 2 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Dykstra, 991 F.2d 450, 453 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 510 U.S. 880, 114 S.Ct. 222, 126 L.Ed.2d 177 (1993); United States v. Reeves, 752 F.2d 995, 998-99 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 834, 106 S.Ct. 107, 88 L.Ed.2d 87 (1985). That may not involve fraud.
Nevertheless, there is often a clear relationship between fraud and corruption because both "are paradigm examples of activities done with an intent to gain an improper benefit or advantage." United States v. Mitchell, 985 F.2d 1275, 1278 (4th Cir.1993). In the case at hand, for example, Workinger obstructed and impeded by filing false documents. That was activity which was fraudulent by its very nature. Thus, although the district court was technically wrong, the breadth of § 6531(1) illuminates what Congress was about when it added the § 6531(6) exception to the three-year statute.
II. The Admission of the Transcript
Workinger's claim that the admission of a transcript violated the best evidence rule is otiose. See Fed.R.Evid. 1002. The rule provides that: "To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress." Here the government sought to prove the content of the tape made during Workinger's deposition. The tape, therefore, was the best evidence of its own content. See United States v. Gonzales-Benitez, 537 F.2d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 923, 97 S.Ct. 323, 50 L.Ed.2d 291 (1976). However, the tape was not available because it had been erased by its owner, Mr. Johnson, prior to the trial. That had been done in the ordinary course of his business and not at the behest of the government. Therefore, use of the tape itself was not required. See Fed.R.Evid. 1004(1); see also United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1513-14 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2558, 132 L.Ed.2d 812 (1995). The best evidence rule was not violated.
Workinger additionally contends that because the transcripts were not adequately authenticated, the district court abused its discretion when it admitted them into evidence. See Fed.R.Evid. 901(a). That Rule states that for authentication there must be "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." A document can be authenticated by the testimony of a witness with knowledge. United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1336 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1011, 114 S.Ct. 1385, 128 L.Ed.2d 60 (1994). The government need only make a prima facie showing of authenticity "so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification." United States v. Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d 990, 996 (9th Cir.1991) (citation omitted). Once the prima facie case for authenticity is met, the probative value of the evidence is a matter for the jury. Id.; United States v. Blackwood, 878 F.2d 1200, 1202 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
III. Testimony of Agent Brock
Workinger next contends that the prosecution offered false evidence when it elicited testimony from Agent Brock that characterized two monetary amounts as income. First, she testified that $7,855.55 payed to the defendant from Ira Lawrence was income--not merely a loan as Workinger claims. Second, she testified that the entire $8,625 in proceeds Workinger received from the sale of equipment to Lawrence was income--not an amount reduced by his basis in the property. Workinger disagrees with her analysis, but his differing opinion of the results of his various manipulations does not convert the agent's contrary characterization into perjury. Brock's testimony did have a basis in the facts and in the law and Workinger's disagreement with Brock's analysis did not transform her testimony into a falsehood. See Campbell v. Gregory, 867 F.2d 1146, 1148 (8th Cir.1989) (testimony of expert is not perjury merely because it differed from opinions of other experts). In short, Workinger has not made a prima facie case of government misconduct. See United States v. Paris, 827 F.2d 395, 401 n. 3 (9th Cir.1987) (burden is on defendant to make prima facie case showing prosecutorial misconduct).
corruptly or by force or threats of force ... endeavor[ ] to intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title, or in any other way corruptly or by force or threats of force ... obstruct[ ] or impede[ ], or endeavor[ ] to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title.
I would begin by examining the language of section 6531(6), see N.Y. Conference of Blue Cross v. Travelers Ins., 514 U.S. 645, ----, 115 S.Ct. 1671, 1677, 131 L.Ed.2d 695 (1995), something the majority never does. Consistent with ordinary usage, section 6531(6)'s parenthetical is more naturally understood as descriptive rather than restrictive. See Norman J. Singer, 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 45.13, at 78 (5th ed. 1992) ("[L]egislators can be presumed to rely on conventional language usage."). Thus, section 6531(6) reads most easily if "the offense described in section 7212(a)" is taken to refer to section 7212(a) in its entirety, and the parenthetical language is understood as further identifying, by way of a general description of its content, the section intended. This does not violate the canon of statutory construction that says courts should strive not to render language in a statute superfluous. Parenthetical language is commonly used for descriptive purposes and, to the extent Congress so used it in section 6531(6), it remains fully functional under a descriptive interpretation. If Congress intended to establish a six-year statute of limitations for "intimidating" and a three-year statute for otherwise obstructing or impeding, it chose a particularly awkward way to achieve this. It would have been much more straightforward to outlaw intimidating United States officials in one subsection, to outlaw any other form of obstructing or impeding them in another, and to refer only to the first in section 6531(6).
Other courts have interpreted identical parenthetical language as descriptive. In United States v. Herring, 602 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir.1979), for example, defendant was charged with "racketeering activity" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961. Section 1961's definition incorporated by reference other federal offenses, identifying them by their United States Code section and a brief parenthetical description. See Herring, 602 F.2d at 1223 n. 3. One of the statutes so incorporated was 18 U.S.C. § 2314, which made it a crime to transport securities in interstate commerce, knowing them to have been "stolen, converted or taken by fraud." Herring, 602 F.2d at 1222 n. 2. Section 1961, however, described section 2314 as only "(relating to interstate transportation of stolen property)." Id. at 1223 & n. 3 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1961) (emphasis added). Defendant moved to dismiss the section 1961 charge, claiming that, while the securities in Herring might have been "converted" or "taken by fraud," it was clear they had not been "stolen"; he therefore hadn't violated the part of section 2314 that had been incorporated into section 1961. See id. at 1223. The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, explaining that "the parenthetical [language] ... was intended merely to aid the identification of section 2314 rather than to limit the proscriptions of that section." Id.; accord United States v. Garner, 837 F.2d 1404, 1418-19 (7th Cir.1987) (section 1961's reference to "title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery)" reached any conduct amounting to a section 201 violation, not only conduct within "the common definition of bribery"); Fidelity & Deposit v. Stromberg Sheet Metal, 532 A.2d 676, 678-79 (D.C.App.1987) (statutory reference to "title 40 ... sections 270a-270e (known as the Miller Act, relating to performance bonds)" meant the entire Miller Act, not "only that portion dealing with performance bonds").
Workinger doesn't point to any cases that have interpreted similar parenthetical language as restrictive. He cites 26 U.S.C. § 1(a)(1), which refers to "every married individual (as defined in section 7703)," and 26 U.S.C. § 9722, which states: "If a principal purpose of any transaction is to evade or avoid liability under this chapter, this chapter shall be applied (and such liability shall be imposed) without regard to such transaction." These sections don't help Workinger. Unlike the language of section 7212(a), language of the section 1(a)(1) is more naturally understood as restrictive because it uses the restrictive phrase "as defined." And it's not clear what comfort Workinger gets from section 9722's parenthetical language, which is clearly not restrictive but descriptive.
Nor is Workinger's explanation of why Congress would have provided a six-year statute of limitations for "intimidating" but a three-year statute for otherwise "obstructing or impeding" persuasive. He claims that intimidation offenses are somehow less "dangerous" than other section 7212(a) violations, Appellant's Reply Br. at 4, but this doesn't take into account the language of section 7212(a). The statute makes it illegal not only to "intimidate or impede" United States officials, but to "in any other way corruptly or by force or threats of force ... obstruct[ ] or impede[ ], or endeavor[ ] to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title." 18 U.S.C. § 7212(a). In other words, section 7212(a), by its terms, anticipates "obstructing" or "impeding" offenses that involve the use of force or threats, and can therefore be quite "dangerous." Suppose, for example, that Workinger had broken into the home of the IRS agent who was investigating him and slit the agent's throat while he slept. Workinger wouldn't have intimidated the agent, but he would surely have endeavored to obstruct or impede the administration of the tax laws in a particularly "dangerous" manner.
Workinger also points to Waters v. United States, 328 F.2d 739 (10th Cir.1964), where the Tenth Circuit reasoned that "[s]ince the six-year limitation [under section 6531] is an exception to the [three-year] general rule, it must be strictly construed to apply to those offenses specifically enumerated." Id. at 743. Workinger takes this language out of context. The Tenth Circuit was there referring to offenses listed in sections of the tax code that were not enumerated in section 6531. Section 7212(a), by contrast, is listed by number and therefore is "specifically enumerated" as the Tenth Circuit used those words. Workinger also points to Waters ' statement that section 6531 "is to be liberally interpreted in favor of the accused." Id. at 742. The Supreme Court has since explained, however, that the so-called "rule of lenity" applies only where the language of a criminal statute is "grievously ambiguous." Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, ---- n. 17, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 1804 n. 17, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994) (brackets omitted); Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 463, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 1926, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991). That test isn't met here. Although Workinger's interpretation can't be rejected out of hand, it's not as persuasive as the alternative.
I see no reason to apply the rule of lenity in any event. The Supreme Court has articulated two rationales for the rule, neither of which is implicated here. The first is that defendants are entitled to notice of what's illegal so they can conform their conduct. See United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 348, 92 S.Ct. 515, 522, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971). But it is unlikely in the extreme that a defendant would elect to commit a crime because he believed the statute of limitations for the offense was only three years instead of six; there is no plausible reliance interest at stake here. The second rationale is that only legislatures, not courts, should make conduct criminal; the rule of lenity prevents a court from resolving an ambiguity in a criminal statute so as to expand the scope of a criminal statute beyond what the legislature clearly intended. See id. But there's no concern here that a court will render criminal what the legislature meant to remain legal. Workinger's conduct clearly was criminal under section 7212(a); the only doubt is whether the government waited too long to prosecute. There's no reason to apply the rule of lenity on that point.
I cannot join this analysis because it presupposes that the best evidence rule applies here. It does not. The best evidence rule calls for the introduction of "the original writing, recording, or photograph" only where the proponent seeks "[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph." Fed.R.Evid. 1002. Here, the government did not seek, by introducing the transcript, to prove the content of the tapes but to prove what was said at the deposition itself; Workinger admits as much. See Br. for Appellant at 17 ("The prosecution in this case sought to introduce the transcript as evidence of admissions by Dr. Workinger.") (emphasis added) (citing ER 137 (the government offered testimony "to authenticate the transcript as substantive evidence of what occurred")).3 It is true that the reporter prepared the transcript by listening to the tapes. The transcript, nevertheless, purports to reflect what was said at the deposition, not what was on the tapes.4 The best evidence rule has no application.
The majority attributes some independent significance to the tape transcript by arguing that "[a] different rule would lead to transcripts being submitted with the admonition 'Trust me, the transcript does reflect what was taped.' ... [This] is precisely what the best evidence rule was designed to avoid." Maj. op. at 1415. But this hopelessly confuses the policies of the best evidence rule with those of the hearsay rule. The transcript here was admissible not because it accurately reflected the tape, but because Donald Johnson, the attorney for the defendant's ex-wife, testified that it accurately reflected the deposition. ER at 90-92. Without this testimony from someone who was present, I'm not at all sure the transcript would have been admissible since, as the majority notes, the transcriber was not present when the testimony was given and thus could not authenticate the transcript as an accurate reflection of what was said at the deposition. See maj. op. at 1415.
The district court found Count 7 timely based not only on section 6531(6), but also on section 6531(1). The latter provides a six-year statute of limitations "for offenses involving the defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States or any agency thereof." 26 U.S.C. § 6531(1). The government doesn't defend this reasoning on appeal and, in fact, with commendable candor, acknowledges the authority that shows it to be error. Br. of Appellee at 15 n. 5 (citing United States v. Grainger, 346 U.S. 235, 244, 73 S.Ct. 1069, 1074, 97 L.Ed. 1575 (1953)). The majority's discussion of the issue, maj. op. at 1413-14, is therefore superfluous