Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry DAVIS, d/b/a Davis Mfg. Co., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-03-10
Citations: 424 F.2d 1241
Docket Number: No. 27489
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry DAVIS, d/b/a Davis Mfg. Co., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 424
Pages: 1241–1244

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry DAVIS, d/b/a Davis Mfg. Co., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 27489.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 10, 1970.
Rehearing Denied April 29, 1970.
Edwin M. Sigel, Sigel, Simms & Roane, Houston, Tex., Michael Jay Ku-per, Dallas, Tex., Edward B. Williams, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.
Eldon B. Mahon, U. S. Atty., B. H. Timmins, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen.. Joseph M. Howard, Richard B. Buhrman, Attys., Tax Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before TUTTLE, WISDOM and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from a conviction of the appellant on six counts for violation of the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue laws (§§ 7201 and 7206(1)) raises five points aside from the contention that there was not sufficient evidence to support submitting the case to the jury, in light of the appellant's contentions respecting his purpose in not showing the substantial amount of unreported income on his books for the three years in question.
First, we state that there was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict. The next point raised by appellant is that after the trial court ordered all documents to be shown that were in possession of the government to counsel for the appellant, a certain number of documents were placed in a sealed envelope for later inspection, and that at some time unknown as to either party, but before the trial, the sealed envelope had been unsealed and appellant was unable to ascertain whether any of the documents in the sealed envelope were present or missing. As to this point, we conclude that appellant's description of this occurrence as "a wholly unscrupulous pretrial incident" with no proof to support his contention, is an overstatement of the facts even as contended for by the appellant. Moreover, no specific relief was requested by appellant of the trial court by calling this specific incident to the court's attention at the time of trial. The trial court, therefore, committed no error that is before us for review.
We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to produce certain grand jury testimony of three persons who testified before the grand jury, but who were not called to testify before the jury on the trial itself, or in denying appellant's motion to produce a statement by an unnamed informer who testified before the grand jury, but who did not testify at the trial.
As to the contention that the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress evidence on the ground that the evidence had been obtained by "use of a revenue agent in lieu of a special agent to uncover incriminating evidence," without giving a Miranda warning and was a violation of taxpayer's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights is unsupported by the record. The trial court made full findings with respect to the normalcy of the original investigation by the revenue agent to the effect that when he discovered some evidence of possible criminal action, he notified the appellant that he had better get a lawyer and that he (the agent) was turning the matter over to a "special agent." This fact distinguishes the case from the others in this and other circuits in which the courts have begun applying, to some extent, some of the protections now afforded accused persons in other types of criminal actions.
Finally, we have carefully considered the record with respect to the introduction of certain documents, some of which were for a period of time following the years of prosecution. We agree with the position of the government to the effect that counsel for appellant did not make plain to the trial court which of the several specific documents were , objected to and obtain a ruling with respect to each one, as to their relevancy on the issues involved in the prosecution years.
The judgment is affirmed.