Opinion ID: 292272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure To Instruct On Defensive Theory

Text: 11 In his final contention Appellant argues it was 'plain error' for the District Court to fail to submit the following charge to the jury: 12 'If you find that the defendant had discussed this matter with competent tax counsel and that the tax return herein was prepared pursuant to that advice, then you must find that the defendant did not willfully file a false return or make a false statement, and you should bring in a verdict of not guilty.' 13 This too is a pure afterthought since no request was made and in response to a specific inquiry by the Judge concerning any omissions in his charge defense counsel answered in the negative. 14 By his failure to seasonably object to the deletion of this defensive charge 'before the jury retire(d) to consider its verdict', Appellant waived any complaint he may have validly presented. F.R.Civ.P. 30. Nor is the Doctor saved by the redeeming reaches of Rule 52(b), F.R.Civ.P. It does not reach the status of plain error, if it was error at all. The if is a big one since the instruction now proposed, never requested and never objected to, is full of holes-- the most notable being that nothing is required under it save discussion with a tax advisor, with not even the slightest requirement of full, fair disclosure by taxpayer. 8 Next, in considering the charge as a whole, the substance of the correct defensive theory was given. 9 Certainly this is true in the context of plain error.