Opinion ID: 468092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The state appeals court

Text: 40 Cola's arguments to the state appeals court were essentially three: (1) he challenged the sufficiency of the government's evidence; (2) he claimed errors in the judge's instructions to the jury; and (3) he claimed error in denial of his motions for a required finding of not guilty as to each indictment. To support his view of error by the trial court, Cola alleged that the proof at trial and the judge's instructions focused on the loan transactions, acts which because they were allegedly never connected to a particular government interest in the collection of taxes, could not in Cola's view be crimes under 4(c). Moreover, Cola objected to what he regarded as a theory of guilt concocted by the prosecutor only for purposes of the appeal; namely, that Cola's illicit act of agency was not only his participation in the loan transactions but his covert representation of Rapp at the bankruptcy proceeding. 41 For purposes of this habeas petition, the relevant portions of the Appeals Court decision are those addressing Cola's objections to the judge's instructions and the legal and factual basis for the conviction under the agency indictment.