Opinion ID: 673449
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion to Bifurcate and Motion for Mistrial

Text: 17 Bencs claims that the court erred in denying his motion to bifurcate the tax evasion charges from the money laundering charges, stating that his defense on the evasion charges was prejudiced by evidence admissible only on the laundering charges, i.e., that he had income derived from illegal activity. He claims that the prejudice is apparent from the government's reference to his drug dealing in its opening statement. Bencs' motion for a mistrial based on these comments was denied, and he claims that this too was error. 18 Offenses may be joined under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a) if they are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. Rule 14 provides that if joinder of offenses results in prejudice, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts ... or provide whatever other relief justice requires. Rule 14 leaves the determination of risk of prejudice and any remedy that may be necessary to the sound discretion of the district court. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). 19 Joinder of the money laundering and tax evasion counts was proper. Evidence of Bencs' marijuana income was admissible on the evasion charges regardless of whether Bencs was simultaneously tried on the money laundering charges. The charge of tax evasion requires proof of the willful attempt to evade or defeat a federal tax. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7201. The government may prove tax evasion through the net worth method, pursuant to which the government demonstrates with reasonable certainty the defendant's net worth at the commencement of the relevant period, and then at the end. If the ending amount is greater than the beginning, and the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had one or more sources of taxable income, the jury can find that the receipts constituted taxable income to the defendant. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 138, 75 S.Ct. 127, 136-37, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954). Drug proceeds constitute taxable income. Thus, in United States v. Wirsing, 719 F.2d 859 (6th Cir.1983), the court concluded that tax evasion charges were properly joined with a marijuana distribution charge, where the defendant's unreported income was allegedly derived from his illegal activity in distributing drugs. 3 Accord United States v. Clark, 928 F.2d 639, 644 (4th Cir.1991). 20 The evidence which Bencs claims was prejudicial was admissible against him on both the evasion charges and laundering charges, and the government was entitled to make reference to this evidence in its opening statement. Consequently, Bencs has not demonstrated that the district court erred in denying his motion to bifurcate or his motion for a mistrial.