Opinion ID: 1249230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: mr. moran

Text: James Moran contends that since he also asserted a good faith defense, he is entitled to the same relief as Mrs. Moran. The government does not dispute that Mr. Moran raised a good faith defense but argues that the defense is specific to the individual: Whether or not one person possesses a good faith belief in the legality of her actions has no effect on whether another person has a good faith belief. That statement is undoubtedly true, but it misconceives the issue. The question is whether the district court's ruling excluding evidence of outside professional opinions prejudiced Mr. Moran's defense. In Bishop, the government had charged Mr. Bishop, but not his wife, with violation of the tax laws. 291 F.3d at 1105. The defendant called Mrs. Bishop to testify about tax advice she and her husband had received from an accountant to show Bishop's good faith reliance on professional advice. Id. at 1111-12. The government's objection was sustained. Id. at 1112. On appeal, we held that it was error to exclude the evidence, stating: While Ms. Bishop's own state of mind was not an issue in the case, her testimony would have been relevant and would have qualified as circumstantial evidence to prove [Mr.] Bishop's state of mind. [Mr.] Bishop's state of mind is also relevant to Cardenaz, as they were convicted of conspiring, and this crime requires willfulness. Bishop, 291 F.3d at 1112. Here, the Morans were charged as coconspirators. The testimony sought from Mrs. Moran concerning professional opinions about the tax scheme with which they were jointly charged would have been relevant as circumstantial evidence to prove the state of mind of her husband and coconspirator, James Moran. The testimony at trial underlines the relevance of Mrs. Moran's testimony to Mr. Moran's defense. In her testimony, she often used the words we and our, referring to her husband and herself when explaining their participation in AAA. The letter from Mr. Hayes about which Mrs. Moran was cross-examined was addressed in part to Mr. Moran. And most notably, when asked on redirect about outside expert opinions, Mrs. Moran stated that  we had had several give us their . . . (emphasis added) before she was cut off. The court issued no limiting instructions regarding crossover of evidence between the Morans, and it appears that no such instructions were requested. Moreover, by the time Mr. Moran testifiedafter Mrs. Moranthe court had already made it clear that it was not going to permit testimony about the opinions of outside experts. But for this error, Mr. Moran would have had the opportunity to present evidence of the advice he received. The convictions of defendants Pamela Moran and James Moran are VACATED and the case is REMANDED for a new trial. [7]