Opinion ID: 274818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: It does.

Text: 29 MR. FRIEDMAN: May we have a continuing objection to this, if the Court please? 30 THE COURT: You may. 31 Q. And does it likewise reflect all the payments which were made by those particular taxpayers, between those dates you have stated the certificate covers, and made within the Northern Internal Revenue District of Ohio? 32 A. On those tax returns, yes. 33 Q. All right. Let us go to Government Exhibit 50. Who is the taxpayer for whom the certificate known as Government Exhibit 50 was made? 34 MR. GIBSON: May the record show that we object to this compilation in behalf of George Besase and John Besase. 35 THE COURT: The record may show your objection. 36 MR. MATTIMOE: Does the Court want to see these forms? THE COURT: Not at this time. 37 Q. (By Mr. Mattimoe) Who is the taxpayer on Government Exhibit 50? 38 A. May I make a clarification here? This has two pages, this exhibit. 39 Q. It is a two-page exhibit, I believe, yes. 40 A. The first Certificate of Assessments and Payments covers the taxpayers John, George and Joseph Besase, the Star Company, and is for tax on wagering. It covers the month of January through June, 1963. 41 Q. And the second page? 42 A. The second page is the certificate covering the taxpayers John and George Besase, the Star Company, tax on wagering, covering the period July through November, 1963. 43 Q. Does that certificate, Government Exhibit 50, reflect all of the returns which were filed and all of the payments which were made for those taxpayers you have named from January, 1963, through November, 1963, within the Northern Internal Revenue District of Ohio? 44 A. On wagering, yes. 45 Q. On wagering, yes. And Government Exhibit 51, who are the taxpayers for whom it covers? 46 A. Government Exhibit 51 covers Sam Besase and Angelo Perna, tax on wagering, covering the period from January through November, 1963. 47 Q. And does that Government Exhibit 51 reflect all of the wagering tax returns which were filed — 48 MR. LYNCH: (Interposing) I object to this. 49 Q. May I finish the question? (Continuing) — and all of the payments made on wagering tax returns filed by those taxpayers from January, 1963, through November, 1963? 50 MR. LYNCH: I object to the question. It is leading, not one justified by the exhibit. The exhibit simply is a marked certificate of payments for those months, and there is no statement on there that this represents all of the tax returns. 51 MR. MATTIMOE: That is why I asked the witness the question. 52 MR. LYNCH: There has been no showing he knows that, that it is within his knowledge, or that he prepared all of these forms himself. 53 MR. MATTIMOE: Yes. The witness has testified that — 54 THE COURT: (Interposing) He testified it was prepared under his direction, as I recall. 55 MR. LYNCH: Yes, Your Honor, but I object to this now and I will object when it is offered in evidence. It appears to be hearsay evidence. The person who actually prepared it would be the person to ask about it. 56 MR. MATTIMOE: This is a basic exception to the hearsay rule. 57 THE COURT: I will overrule the objection at this time. 58 Q. Can you answer the question? 59 A. Yes, it does.    60 It is evident that Mr. Lucic did not personally prepare the exhibits and there is no evidence that he personally made a search of all the records filed in the Cleveland, Ohio District Office. 61 The records, exhibits 49, 50, and 51, are insufficient to prove non-filing by a six-member partnership. On their face they purport to be only a transcript of the returns of the Taxpayer named above. The taxpayers named in each instance in the exhibits are respectively Sam Rappaport and Ted Maison, M & R Co.; John and George Besase, The Star Co.; and Sam Besase and Angelo Perna. None of the exhibits purports to be a transcript of the returns of a six-member partnership composed of all six defendants. None fulfills the function of the type of exhibit permitted as proof of the absence of records by Rule 44(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. which provides: 62 A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. 63 This rule is made applicable to criminal trials by Rule 27, Fed.R.Crim.P. 64 Accordingly, although the admission of the exhibits did not violate the hearsay rule, they failed to afford proof of an indispensable element of the government's case, the fact that the alleged six-man partnership did not file a proper return. There being no other evidence to support this finding, the motion for acquittal should have been granted. 65 The convictions below are reversed and the case is remanded for entry of an appropriate order.