Opinion ID: 361300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inconsistency of jury special verdicts

Text: 31 The jury was asked this special interrogatory: Has the plaintiff proved the correct specific dollar amount of wagers, . . . which were accepted by John Henry Simpkins during any of the periods involved?, and it answered  No. It was also given this interrogatory, What was the total amount of gross wagers, . . . on a daily basis, which were accepted by Mr. Simpkins . . .? The jury answer was $101 per day. The government argues that the two answers are inconsistent, that since the answer to the first question was No, the jury must have concluded that Simpkins had failed to meet his burden of proving the correct amount of taxes he actually owed and hence should have answered the other interrogatory with the government's figure of $475 per day. 32 We do not agree that the answers are inconsistent. The first interrogatory asked whether the Plaintiff proved the correct amount of wagers received. The jury could have construed this phrase to mean that the evidence presented By Simpkins had to be sufficient to prove the correct amount of wagers he had handled. The jury could reasonably have concluded that the evidence presented by Simpkins his testimony was not enough standing alone. Thus the negative answer. But the jury also could consistently have concluded that the government's evidence, particularly the testimony of the FBI agent, taken in conjunction with Simpkins' testimony, was sufficient to prove the correct amount of wagers handled by Simpkins. Of course, Simpkins was not restricted to his own evidence in carrying his burden of proof. 22 33 The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED in all respects.