Document: 348 U.S. 142 75 S.Ct. 138 99 L.Ed. 188 Friedbergv.UNITED STATES of America. No. 18. Argued Oct. 20, 1954. Decided Dec. 6, Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1955. See 932, 334. Mr.Robert N. Gorman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Mr. H. BrianHolland, Asst. Atty. Gen., respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is second in group four cases involving income tax prosecutions under net worth method proof. In this case petitioner was indicted years 1944 through 1947, and convicted on all counts except first, covering year 1944. 2 While discussion Holland v. United States, 121, 127, dispositive some more general problems raised by type prosecution, here directs his fire specifically at sufficiency evidence as to opening worth. To highlight contention that Government had not properly accounted an alleged hoard cash bonds hand beginning indictment period, has stipulated virtually every other issue out case. 3 Although petitioner's testimony vacillated,1 we conclude from a careful examination largest amount claimed starting point 'far excess' $60,000. The Government's evidence, Holland, did directly dispute this, but it painstakingly trace Friedbergs' finances 1922 prosecution years. It pointed unmistakably conclusion no such board point. 4 briefly outlined, follows: Petitioner filed return 1922, paid nominal taxes 1923, 1924 1925, and, 1926, 1927, 1930 1937, when he nontaxable returns, returns 1926 1937. He borrowed small sums money three occasions 1931. 1934, failed pay $30 month real estate mortgage, mortgagee brought foreclosure suit unable meet modest compromise terms offered him court. 1936 1940, levies judgment $13.76 were returned nulla bona. A mortgage former home foreclosed deficiency entered over $3,500. writ execution 'nothing found' 1939, then settled paying $100 release liability. stated application loan total assets $9,200, including $150 hand, while liabilities $500. tailoring business which worked since average $50 week dissolved 1941 because could its bills, bought $650. 5 Yet during these years, 1920's until 1941, have accumulated We think jury readily concluded saved reserve. 6 Petitioner's objections can be disposed quickly. First, contends error special agent, witness Government, give 'personal opinion' But distorts what actually happened. agent asked cross-examination 'yes or no' answer whether statement credited with any 1941. said 'there available show there cash.' After defense counsel's insistence 'did you didn't you' credit cash, court allowed explain answer. explained investigation disclosed would permit redirect elaborated, pointing foreclosures been detailed above. From said, 'could see reason why (he) should * include' 7 hardly 'conclusion witness', 'ultimate decided jury,' claims. upon insistence, testifying negative fact: included found cash. summarized only already introduced trial. difficult how invaded province jury; nor do question answered otherwise. 8 Finally, asserted trial judge's final instruction jury, given hours after begun deliberations. called issues.2 may 'compromise' literal sense, if used alone, leave improper connotations. Though use unfortunate, misled jury. note objection made instructions, oral argument devoted them later motion new fact, disclaimed intent make now attacked ground persuasive originally consider section charge prejudicial; remaining instructions fair negatived inference verdict permissible, are inclined agree. face record, sufficient reversal. 9 Affirmed. Both Friedberg wife testified $50,000 1936; another swore between $100,000 time; 1938 $60,000; finally, 'substantially' 1947. was: 'The Court will stand recess one-thirty. say time I want honest sincere effort reach agreement merits shirk your duty. defendant. Nevertheless, taken many days try, hope adjust differences verdict, possible.'

Category: 0