Opinion ID: 694116
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of United States v. Gaudin.

Text: 73 Next, Knapp asserts that pursuant to the recent Ninth Circuit en banc decision, United States v. Gaudin, 28 F.3d 943 (9th Cir.1994), cert. granted, 115 S.Ct. 713 (Jan. 6, 1995) (No. 94-514), the trial court erred in treating the materiality element of the charges under 26 U.S.C. Secs. 7206(1) & (2) as a question of law, rather than submitting it to the jury. 74 In Gaudin, the court held by a 6-5 margin that materiality is a question of fact in a charge under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. Gaudin upheld an earlier decision holding the same, United States v. Valdez, 594 F.2d 725, 728-29 (9th Cir.1979). The Gaudin court reasoned that recent Supreme Court authority, beginning with In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) and most recently in Sullivan v. Louisiana, 113 S.Ct. 2078 (1993), has emphasized the constitutional requirement that the jury must find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of a crime with which the defendant is charged. Gaudin, 28 F.3d at 945-46. 75 Because Gaudin decided the materiality question under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, it does not control the question under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206(1) & (2) at issue here. The controlling Ninth Circuit decision on the precise issue before the court is United States v. Flake, 746 F.2d 535 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1225 (1985). 76 In Flake, the appellant argued that because Valdez required materiality to be decided by a jury under Sec. 1001, it must also do so under Sec. 7206(1). The Flake court disagreed, adopting precedent directly on point from other circuits, and held that materiality is a question of law under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206(1). 746 F.2d at 537. Gaudin notwithstanding, Flake is still good law. Gaudin did not overrule Flake, which is directly on point on the issue now before the court. Therefore, the trial court committed no error. 77