Opinion ID: 2981163
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Special Agent Kennedy

Text: Campbell also challenges the admission of the testimony of Special Agent Kennedy, an investigator with the Internal Revenue Service. As a preliminary matter, Campbell did not object to the admission of Kennedy’s testimony at trial. We therefore review the admission of the testimony for plain error. United States v. Baker, 458 F.3d 513, 519 (6th Cir. 2006). For plain error -6- No. 11-5442 United States v. Glenna Campbell to occur “there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). “If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 467 (alterations omitted). Special Agent Kennedy testified regarding the expenditure analysis he conducted on the Campbells’ personal finances. In essence, he looked at the value of their purchases over the period of time covered in the indictment, and determined that their value was significantly greater than the amount of income the Campbells claimed on their federal tax return and assets listed on credit applications. He did not conduct the more complex net-worth analysis common in tax-fraud cases, which requires the government to establish a baseline of assets and cash on-hand prior to the period where the defendant was alleged to have engaged in fraudulent activity. However, Special Agent Kennedy never represented that he was engaging in net-worth analysis, but instead stated clearly that he lacked the records necessary to conduct that analysis. All Special Agent Kennedy was able to state was that the purchases made by the Campbells could not be reconciled with the income and other assets that the Campbells disclosed. In light of the limited scope of Agent Kennedy’s testimony, it was not error, let alone plain error, to admit it at trial. Unlike in tax-evasion cases, the government had no burden to prove that the Campbells’ expenditures stemmed from the fraudulent activity. Instead, Special Agent Kennedy’s testimony was offered to show that the Campbells had personally profited in some manner from the fraudulent money orders. While Campbell argues that Special Agent Kennedy’s -7- No. 11-5442 United States v. Glenna Campbell testimony is unfairly prejudicial, “[u]nfair prejudice does not mean the damage to a defendant’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather it refers to evidence which tends to suggest [a] decision on an improper basis.” United States v. Howard, 621 F.3d 433, 457 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 567 (6th Cir. 1993)). Campbell has no argument as to why Special Agent Kennedy’s testimony would “suggest [a] decision on an improper basis.” Id. Campbell was free to argue, and did argue, that the discrepancy found by Special Agent Kennedy could be explained by the Campbells’ dipping into personal savings, and thus Special Agent Kennedy’s conclusion was not a reliable picture of the Campbells’ finances. The fact that the jury did not accept Campbell’s argument in voting to convict does not mean that the testimony was improperly prejudicial. See United States v. Cosgrove, 637 F.3d 646, 658 (6th Cir. 2011) (“All of these arguments go to the weight the jury should afford the evidence, not to its admissibility. Trial counsel was able to raise each of these points at trial, both through cross examination and closing arguments.”).