Court Opinion

ID: 9638679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:50:22.34031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:08.772760
License: Public Domain

MAJOR, Circuit Judge.
These appeals are from a judgment, entered on the verdict of a jury, finding the defendants guilty of a wilful attempt to evade the payment of income taxes, and of conspiracy to defraud the United States. The appellant in No. 7500 is William R. Johnson, and the appellants in No. 7501 (sometimes herein referred to as “co-defendants”) are Jack Sommers, James A. Hartigan, John M. Flanagan, William P. Kelly and Stuart Solomon Brown. The indictment contains five counts, the first four of which charge Johnson with evasion of income taxes for the years 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939, and are predicated upon Section 145(b), 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code. As to the offenses alleged in these counts, the co-defendants (appellants in No. 7501) are charged as aiders and abettors. The fifth count charges all defendants with a conspiracy to defraud the United States of income taxes. 18 U.S.C.A. § 88.
In addition to the appellants in No. 7501, a number of others were charged as aiders and abettors. As to such others, the charge was nolle pressed as to William R. Skid-more, William Goldstein, Orrie Alexander and Bernice Downey. A verdict of not guilty was returned as to Andrew J. Creighton, Edward Wait and Reginald E. MacKay.
The trial commenced August 17, 1940, and the verdict of the jury was returned October 12, 1940. As might be expected in a trial of this duration, many complicated and difficult questions, both legal and factual, were presented. Many errors are here assigned which it is contended require a reversal of the judgment. After a lengthy and careful consideration of the voluminous record and briefs, we have reached the conclusion that the contention must be sustained. It would be impractical to consider all the errors assigned or contentions made by the respective parties, and we shall, therefore, discuss only those which we regard as of controlling importance.
The contested issues revolve largely around: (1) The denial of certain ' preliminary motions, (2) that the verdict of the jury is not supported by substantial, competent evidence, (3) the admission of improper evidence, (4) the improper examination and cross-examination of witnesses, (5) the improper and prejudicial remarks of the prosecutors, and (6) the denial by the court to include in its charge to the jury certain requests made by the defendants.
At the threshold of our consideration, we are confronted with the troublesome question arising from the court’s denial of certain preliminary motions, pleas and demurrers invoked by the defendants. On May 16, 1940, there was filed on behalf of the defendant Johnson, what was entitled a motion to quash the indictment, and on the same date there was filed on behalf of the other defendants what was entitled a plea in abatement in the nature of a motion to quash. Both the motion and the *117plea attacked for substantially the same reasons, the legality of the Grand Jury which returned the indictment. The defendants also filed a motion for rule on the Government to reply to such plea and motion, which was by the court denied. The Government filed a motion to strike the motion and plea as being insufficient in law, which motion was allowed.
The attack upon the Grand Jury was upon the ground that it was without jurisdiction for the reason that the indictment was returned at a term of court subsequent to that at which it had been originally empaneled, without compliance with the Statute in that respect.
The Grand Jury was empaneled for the December, 1939, Term.1 This term continued until the first Monday in February; the February Term until the first Monday in March, and the March Term until the first Monday in April. The indictment was returned March 29, 1940, during the March Term.
On January 24, 1940, during the December, 1939, Term, the Grand Jury was authorized, by order entered on that date, to sit during the February, 1940, Term to finish investigations begun but not finished at the December Term. No question is raised but that this was a valid order and that the Grand Jury was legally continued from the December to the February Term.
The motion by Johnson to quash (the same may be said of the plea in abatement on behalf of other defendants) alleged that the indictment, returned at the March Term in the year 1940, was without warrant or authority of law for the reason that an order entered February 28, 1940, purporting to authorize the continuance of the Grand Jury from the February to the March Term was void. This order, as alleged in the motion, is as follows:
“Now comes the Second December Term 1939 Grand Jury for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, by Dorothy W. Binder, Forewoman, and in open Court requests that an order be entered authorizing them, the said Second December, 1939 Grand Jury, heretofore authorized to sit during the February 1940 Term of this Court, to continue to sit during the Term of Court succeeding the said February Term of Court, to-wit, the March 1940 Term of Court, to finish investigations begun but not finished by said Grand Jury during the said December 1939 and the said February 1940 Terms of this Court, and which said investigations cannot be finished during the said February 1940 Term of Court; and the Court being fully advised in the premises,
“It Is Therefore Ordered That the Second December 1939 Grand Jury, now sitting in this Division and District, be, and it is hereby authorized to continue to sit during the March 1940 Term of Court for the purpose of finishing said investiga - tions.”
This order, so it was alleged, was predicated upon a petition of the Grand Jury filed February 28, 1940, praying for a continuance order “ * * * to finish investigations begun but not finished by said Grand Jury during the said December 1939 and the said February 1940 Term of this Court, and which said investigations canxiot be finished during the said February 1940 Term of said Court.”
The motion to quash as to the first, second and third counts of the indictment alleged that on March 1, 1940, the same Grand Jury returned an indictment against the defendant Johnson, charging the same crimes, matters and violations as are contained in the first, second and third counts of the instant indictment, and that— “if * * the matters contained in the first, second and third counts of the present and instant indictment were finished and concluded at the February 1940 Tei'm of the said Grand Jury; * *
As to counts four and five, it was alleged that “no investigation of said matters was begun at the December 1939 Term,” and “the investigation of said matters was first begun at said March 1940 Tei'm of Court.” It is the contention of the defendants that the order of continuance was not in compliance with Section 421, 28 U.S.C.A. This provision, so far as now material, provides: “ * * * A district judge may, upon request of the district attorney or of the grand jury or on his own motion, by order authorize any grand jury to continue to sit during the term succeeding the term at which such request is made, solely to finish investigations begun but not finished by such grand *118jury, but no grand jury shall be permitted to sit in all during more than three terms. Hi ^ Hi ”
No question is raised by the Government but that compliance with this provision is essential in order to give a Grand Jury vitality subsequent to the term at which it is originally empaneled. Moreover, in view of the fact that all inferior courts of the United States are of limited jurisdiction and possess only such power and authority as are expressly conferred, no question could well be raised in this respect. As was said in Re Mills, Petitioner, 135 U.S. 263, 267, 10 S.Ct. 762, 763, 34 L.Ed. 107: “ * * * A grand jury, by which presentments or indictments may be made for offenses against the United States is a creature of statute. It cannot be impaneled by a court of the United States by virtue simply of its organization as a judicial tribunal. * * * ”
If a court is without authority to empanel a Grand Jury except as the same is expressly conferred by Statute, it would seem to follow inevitably that a Grand Jury empaneled could only have its authority or power continued to a subsequent term by strict compliance with the statutory provision. The language of the provision plainly limits the authority of the court to continue a Grand Jury to sit “during the term succeeding the term at which the request is made,” and with equal clarity limits the continuance “solely to finish investigations begun but not finished by such grand jury.”
It is contended by the defendants that the order of February 28, 1940, authorized the December Grand Jury to finish investigations begun during the February, 1940, Term when, under the statute, the court had the power only to authorize it to finish investigations begun at the December Term. The Government disputes that the order of the court can be thus construed, but does not argue the question. The language “to finish investigations begun but not finished by said Grand Jury during the said December 1939 and the said February 1940 Terms of this court” leaves no room for argument but that the March Grand Jury was authorized to continue investigations begun at its February Term, as well as those begun at the December Term. It is equally plain that by reason of the statutory limitation, the court was without power to confer upon the Grand Jury authority to continue investigations begun at its February Term. The Government does not dispute — in fact, it, in effect, concedes — the soundness of this proposition.
 The Government, however, in undertaking to meet the situation, relies upon an allegation of the indictment which purports to allege continuance of the Grand Jury, in conformity with the statute. (This allegation was attacked by demurrer as shown hereinafter). It is contended that by reason of this allegation, the question as to whether the Grand Jury was illegally continued to the March Term for the purpose of continuing an investigation begun at the February Term is academic. Reliance upon this allegation, in our judgment, places the Government in a precarious, if not fatal, situation. We. are unable to discern how an illegal order of continuance can be cured or even aided by an allegation in the indictment to the effect that the Grand Jury was legally continued. The Government had an opportunity to answer the allegations of the motion to quash, but instead, entered a motion to strike, which was allowed. By such motion a legal question was presented which must be determined from the averments of the motion to quash.
In our view there can be no escape from the attack made upon the court’s order except by blindly holding that the phrase “to finish investigations begun but not finished by said Grand Jury during the said December 1939 and the said February 1940 Terms” is valid as to the former and void as to the latter. We have been favored with no authority and we are unable to find any which would permit such a construction.
The Government also contends that by reason of the order of January 24, continuing the December Grand Jury to the February Term for the purpose of continuing any investigations begun at the December Term, that the Grand Jury at the February Term had no authority to begin any new investigation. Undoubtedly this is true, but we are unable to perceive how this furnishes any support for the order of February 28.
We are not greatly impressed with the defendants’ argument that the Grand Jury was precluded from continuing an investigation during the March Term merely because of the fact that it, on March 1 (February Term) returned an indictment against Johnson charging the *119same violations as were charged in the first, second and third counts of the instant indictment. True, a Grand Jury has no authority to continue an investigation which has been finished at a preceding term. While the return of an indictment might be an indication that the investigation was finished, we do not think it is conclusive. We see no reason why a Grand Jury is precluded from continuing an investigation after the return of an indictment, and subsequently again indict for the same offense.
The motion to quash with reference to the fourth and fifth counts of the indictment makes the direct allegation that the investigation of the matters therein charged was first begun at the March Term and that no such investigation was begun at the December Term. The fourth count charges the defendant Johnson on to-wit, March 15, 1940, with an attempt to defeat and evade his 1939 income tax (other defendants charged as aiders and abettors). One of the means alleged is the filing of an erroneous return on March 15, 1940. Other means are alleged, not material to the instant question. The fifth count charges all the defendants with a conspiracy from a period commencing about January 1, 1936, up to and including the return of the indictment. It appears that much of the discussion concerning these counts is interwoven with that in connection with the demurrer. It is the contention of the defendants that the offense charged in the fourth count was committed, if at all, on March 15, 1940. We think this is correct —in fact, the count so alleges. It is then argued that no investigation could have been begun prior to the date of the commission of the alleged offense, and therefore, not until the March Term. The Government takes issue with this contention and argues that the Grand Jury investigates facts, not offenses. It is pointed out that the Grand Jury was investigating Johnson’s income for the years 1936 to 1938 inclusive, and could not avoid hearing facts which related to the same question for the calendar year 1939.
There is some plausibility in this argument in view of the fact that each of the first four counts charges the same offense except for different years. It has been held, however, and we think correctly so, that an attempt to evade income tax is a separate offense for each year. United States v. Sullivan, 2 Cir., 98 F.2d 79, 80. In United States v. Miro, 2 Cir., 60 F.2d 58, 61, the court said: “ * * * A tax could neither be evaded nor attempted to be evaded if it was not due; if, by the terms of the statute, there is no tax due in a particular case, there is no ‘tax imposed by this act’ to evade or defeat. * * H= ”
It appears to us that the language of the Statute “solely to finish investigations begun” must have reference to a legal investigation of an offense which has been committed. A Grand Jury is not a conservator of the peace. So far as we know, it has no authority to investigate offenses which it anticipates may be committed in the future. The mere fact that the Grand Jury had discovered evidence of tax evasion for previous years would give it no authority to presume that the same offense would be consummated in a later year. The fact that it heard testimony relative to offenses committed in previous years which might at some later time become relevant to an offense committed in the future, does not, in our judgment, sustain the argument that it could have begun an investigation as to such future offense. We think it is different with reference to the conspiracy count which was a continuing offense, an investigation of which the Grand Jury might have commenced at its December Term.
Our discussion so far has been predicated upon our conclusion that the order of February 28, 1940, was void. If our conclusion in this respect be erroneous, it would not follow that the allowance of the motion to strike the motion to quash could be sustained. As pointed out, the motion as to the first, second and third counts expressly averred, as a matter of fact, that the investigations of the offenses charged in those counts “were finished and concluded at the February 1940 Term of the Said Grand Jury,” and as to counts four and five, the averment was made that the investigation as to offenses therein charged was not “begun at the December 1939 Term of court” and was “first begun at said March 1940 Term of court.” Assuming that the court entered a valid order of continuance, which we have decided to the contrary, the Grand Jury, according to the averments of the motion to quash, failed to comply with such order. We think it is plain that a Grand Jury, legally continued, has no authority to continue an investigation except one begun at *120its original term and not finished either at the original term or an intervening subsequent term. The Government answers the argument as to these averments, by informing us as to the common practice of Grand Juries “engaged in a broad field of inquiry.” This may be the most available answer, but legally it is a fiasco.
In defense of the Grand Jury proceeding, the Government relies upon a decision of this Court, Elwell v. United States, 7 Cir., 275 F. 775. While it does not expressly so contend, we assume it infers, by reason of what was said in that case, that the Grand Jury may be considered as de facto. While we are loath to repudiate a holding of our own court, we are of the view that there is no such thing as a de facto Grand Jury in a Federal Court. In the Elwell case, the court cites People v. McCauley, 256 Ill. 504, 509, 100 N.E. 182, which, it is true, recognizes such a Grand Jury. The latter court expressly points out, however, that a Circuit Court of Illinois has general and original criminal jurisdiction, with common law power to call or continue a Grand Jury. Its- authority is not dependent upon Statute. A United States District Court, on the contrary, is of limited jurisdiction with such powers only as are expressly conferred. A Grand Jury is “a creature of statute.” In re Mills, Petitioner, supra. Furthermore, the Elwell case was decided previously to the enactment of the amendment of Section 421 supra, which expressly limits the authority of the court to continue a Grand Jury. It affords no assistance in the instant case.
We are not unmindful of the rule invoked by the Government that pleas in abatement and those of a kindred nature must be strictly construed. Facts must be stated, not conclusions. Here, however, the allegations were direct and positive. It is difficult to see how they could have been more specific. The challenge went to the very heart of the authority of the Grand Jury to act. The Government’s motion to strike should have been overruled and the Government required to answer. The defendants were entitled to an opportunity to offer evidence in support of the motion and plea. Carter v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442, 447, 20 S.Ct. 687, 44 L.Ed. 839.
Finally the Government relies upon Section 556, 18 U.S.C.A., which provides in substance that no indictment, trial, judgment or other proceeding shall “ * * * be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form only, which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant.” This provision is not applicable —the question presented is one of substance and not of form. Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 644, 16 S.Ct. 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097.
In view of the importance of the case, .the time consumed in its preparation and trial, as well as the expense relative thereto, we are reluctant to pronounce the action of the court as reversible error in striking the motion to quash and the abatement plea. We are forced to the conclusion, however, that there is no escape from such a pronouncement. As was said in Crain v. United States, supra, 162 U.S. 625, 644, 16 S.Ct. 959, 40 L.Ed. 1097: “ * * * Nor ought the courts, in their abhorrence of crime, nor because of their anxiety to enforce the law against criminals, to countenance the careless manner in which the records of cases involving the life or liberty of an accused are often prepared. Before a court of last resort affirms a judgment of conviction of, at least, an infamous crime, it should appear affirmatively from the record that every step necessary to the validity of the sentence has been taken. * * * ”
Notwithstanding that our conclusion in this respect requires a reversal of the judgment, we think it is proper to express our views concerning some of the other issues presented. Demurrers were filed to the indictment by all defendants attacking its sufficiency on numerous grounds, one of which is the alleged insufficiency of the allegation with reference to the continuance of the Grand Jury. The indictment in this respect alleged: “ * * * having begun but not finished during said December Term of Court among other things an investigation of the matters charged in this indictment, and having continued to sit by order of this Court in and for said division and district during the February and March Terms of said Court for the purpose of finishing investigations begun but not finished during said [December Term of Court, pursuant to request of the United States Attorney and upon motion of the Grand Jury, * *
The argument concerning this allegation naturally is interwoven to a considerable extent with that concerning the motion to quash. The most serious criticism is that it failed to allege that the investigation *121was not finished at the February Term. It does allege, however, that the investigations were begun but not finished during the December Term, and that the Grand Jury was continued to the February and March.Terms for the purpose of finishing such investigations. It could not well have been continued to the March Term for the purpose of finishing an investigation which had been finished at the February Term. While the allegation is not as certain as good pleading requires, yet we think it may be reasonably construed to exclude the thought that the investigation was finished at the February Term.
It is also asserted that the allegation is only contained in the first count of the indictment and even if sufficient, it has no application to the other counts which failed to incorporate the allegation by reference or otherwise. We do not believe this position is tenable. As we read the indictment, the allegation is part of what may be termed the preamble and specifically refers to the “matters charged in this indictment,” which we think makes it applicable to all counts alike. It is argued that according to this allegation, only one order of court was entered continuing the December Grand Jury during the February and March Terms. True, the word “order” is used in the singular when it should have been in the plural, but we are not disposed to hold the allegation insufficient for that reason.
The fourth count of the indictment alleged the offense to have been committed on March IS, 1940. It is again argued that an investigation of this offense could not legally have been begun at the December Term, 1939. We have heretofore considered and sustained the validity of this argument. It follows that the demurrer, for this reason, should have been sustained as to the fourth count.
It is also urged that, assuming the sufficiency of the allegation with reference to continuance, the judgment must be reversed for the reason that no proof was offered in its support. While this question, of course, is not raised by demurrer, it is so closely related to our discussion concerning the continuance matter that it appears appropriate to consider it at this point. The Government makes no answer to the contention unless it be that the court takes judicial notice of its orders in support of jurisdictional allegations. How far the court may go in this respect we need not decide for the reason that such notice would have disclosed the Grand Jury was continued to the March Term, illegally as we have held, “to finish investigations begun but not finished * * * during the said December 1939 and the said February 1940 Term of this court.” It is apparent that judicial notice' of this order would not have supported the allegation. In fact, we have sustained the allegation because it is in substantial conformity with the statutory provision rather than the court’s order. If the allegation was essential, as we think it was, it would seem equally essential to support it with proof. Failure to have proved venue, no doubt, would have been fatal to the judgment. We think failure to prove the allegation with reference to the authority of the Grand Jury to act is likewise fatal. This is especially true in the instant case where the Government relied upon it in order to escape facing the issue tendered by the motion to quash.
The position of the Government leads to the inevitable result that a Grand Jury may, with impunity, exceed the limitation which Congress has definitely and plainly placed upon its authority, to act at a succeeding term. Furthermore, its unauthorized acts are not subject to challenge and the Government can never be called upon to make proof that the Grand Jury has proceeded in compliance with law. When confronted with a motion to quash or plea in abatement, it relies upon an allegation of the indictment. When the latter is placed in issue by the defendant’s plea, it offers no proof in support of the allegation, and the only excuse for its failure to do so is that the court takes judicial notice. There may be room for contrariety of opinion as to the precise manner in which the authority of a Grand Jury should be challenged, but we doubt if any will contend that the Government can wholly evade the challenge as has been done in the instant case. Failure of proof with reference to the allegation under discussion is, in our opinion, fatal to the judgment.
We now return to a further discussion of the demurrer. It is contended that various allegations of the indictment are inconsistent and duplicitous. The first four counts are the same, or substantially so, except as to dates and amounts. We shall discuss the first, and what is said will be equally applicable to the second, third and *122fourth. The count charges, in the language of the statute, that the offense was committed on to-wit, the 15th day of March, 1937. It alleges facts disclosing that Johnson was required on or before 'March 15, 1937, to file a return of his income for the calendar year 1936. There is set forth what purports to have been his actual income and tax which he should have paid, as well as his reported income and the tax paid. The latter is substantially less than the former. As a means of committing the offense, it is alleged that the return was made under oath March 12, 1937, and filed March 15, 1937. As a further means, it is alleged that Johnson “did conceal and cause to be concealed from any and all proper officers of the United States, his gross and net incomes aforesaid, and the sources of said gross and net incomes and the sources thereof; * *
The main contention of Johnson is that inasmuch as no date is alleged as to the time of concealment, a continuing offense is charged. There is some ground for this contention when viewed in connection with a subsequent allegation as to the co-defendants (afterwards discussed). We are of the opinion, however, that this allegation can be reasonably construed as referring to March 15, 1937, the date of the offense as alleged. It is also argued by Johnson that the allegations with reference to the filing of the return and of concealment constitute a violation of Section 145(a) and are, therefore,- duplicitous. We do not believe there is any merit in this contention. We see no reason why the matters required or forbidden by that paragraph may not be utilized and alleged as a means of committing the offense defined by Section 145(b).
As to the co-defendants, the count presents a serious and, we think, fatal situation. Following the allegations as to Johnson, to which we have referred, it is alleged that “ * * * during the calendar year 1936 and up to and including March 15, 1937, and continuously thereafter up to and including the date of the filing of the indictment * * * (all co-defendants named) did * * * wilfully and knowingly aid, abet, conceal, induce, and procure the said defendant William R. Johnson, * * * to attempt in the manner aforesaid to evade and defeat the income tax aforesaid. * * * ”
Thus the co-defendants are charged with a continuous offense from a period during 1936 up to March 27, 1940, the date of the return of the indictment. While the offense against Johnson and the means employed- in connection therewith are charged as of March 15, 1937, the co-defendants as aiders and abettors are charged with an offense which extended over a period of years. This allegation against the co-defendants is so utterly inconsistent with those against Johnson that it, in our opinion, invalidates the indictment as to them. The conclusion seems inescapable that the charge against the aiders and abettors could be no broader than that against the principal. Furthermore, we are of the view that the statutory provision upon which the indictment is predicated does not define a continuing offense, nor does it define an offense which can be committed prior to the date on which the taxpayer is required to file his return. As was said in United States v. Miro, supra, 60 F.2d page 61: “ * * * A tax could neither be evaded nor attempted to be evaded if it was not due. * * * »
And as said by this court in O’Brien v. United States, 7 Cir., 51 F.2d 193, 196: “ * * * There could, however, be no such prosecution for a willful attempt to evade or defeat a tax unless there was some tax due from the taxpayer. * * * ”
In addition, as pointed out by the co-defendants, they are charged as accessories both before and after the fact. It is argued that such an allegation is bad for duplicity in view of Section 550, 18 U.S.C.A., by which an accessory before the fact is made a principal and punished as such, while under Section 551, an accessory after the fact can only be punished to the extent of one-half of the maximum imposed upon the principal. The question thus presented has not been decided, so far as we are aware. The Government endeavors to meet the contention by arguing that Section 551 entitled “Punishment of Accessories” is solely for the guidance of the court in pronouncing sentence. It relies upon certain cases,2 none of which is in point. These cases go no further than *123to hold that by Section 550, the distinction between principals, accessories and accomplices has been abolished and that an accessory or accomplice may be charged and punished as principal. It does not follow, as contended here, that the distinction between an accessory before and after the fact has been abolished, nor does the language of Sections 550 and 551 justify such a construction. The Government’s position leads to the result that a defendant may be charged and tried without knowledge as to whether a conviction will subject him to the punishment provided for a principal or the lesser punishment provided for an accessory after the fact. Without information as to whether the jury considered his connection with the offense as having been prior or subsequent thereto, the court, for the purpose of imposing punishment, must determine in which capacity the defendant acted. We are unable to agree with the Government’s contention in this respect. We do not believe a defendant can properly be charged in the same count as an accessory, both before and after the fact.
The fifth count charges all defendants with a conspiracy extending from January 1, 1936, to the time of the filing of the indictment, to defraud the United States of income taxes due from Johnson for the years 1936 to 1939, inclusive. The allegations of counts one, two, three and four, so far as they refer to Johnson, are included by reference. The conspiracy alleged was to the effect that Johnson was engaged in the gambling business and that in order to prepare the way for the making by him of false and fraudulent returns, the defendants would conceal from the Revenue Officers the investment, participation and true ownership of Johnson in numerous gambling houses and enterprises in Cook County and Chicago, Illinois, by operating them under names other than his. Twenty-five of such houses were named. It was further a part of the conspiracy to establish and operate currency exchanges where the proceeds from the gambling houses could be converted into currency in such a manner as to conceal the source, ownership and disposition thereof. It was also alleged that the defendants would file and cause to be filed false and fraudulent income tax returns by Johnson. As in the substantive counts there was set forth what purported to be the true income of Johnson for each of the years in question, and also the income as returned for each of those years. Numerous overt acts are alleged.
We need not discuss the numerous questions raised by the defendants as to this count. It charges a continuing offense which, in itself, is an answer to most of the criticism as to its validity. Skelly v. United States, 10 Cir., 76 F.2d 483, 488.
 We have already held that the fourth count was subject to demurrer as to all defendants. We now hold that the demurrer as to counts one, two and three should .have been sustained as to the co-defendants. As to the defendant Johnson, the demurrer was properly overruled as to counts one, two, three and five, and as to the co-defendants properly overruled as to count five.
By motion for directed verdict at appropriate times, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict was preserved. It is here argued earnestly and at length that there was no substantial, competent evidence in support of the verdict. In view of the fact that the case must be reversed, we shall attempt to do little more than briefly refer to the theories advanced by the respective parties, and the general character of testimony in support thereof.
Johnson admittedly was a professional gambler and had been for many years. If he had any other business of consequence, the record does not disclose it. He was not just an ordinary gambler, but one of towering stature among that fraternity. The co-defendants were also admittedly in the same business. They operated brazenly and notoriously, and, so far as this record discloses, without interference or restraint during the period covered by the indictment. That the field was a fertile one is evidenced by the huge sums of money which apparently passed through their hands. It is of prime importance, however, to keep in mind that they were not charged with the violation of any law prohibiting gambling, or the operation of gambling houses. Neither were they charged with a failure to file income tax returns at the time required by law. Such returns were filed by Johnson, as well as by the co-defendants, and the Government received income tax for each of the years in question in substantial amounts. For the calendar year 1936, Johnson’s return showed a net income of $161,892, upon which he paid a tax of $71,915; for the year 1937, a net income of $248,660, upon *124which he paid a tax of $128,399; for 1938, a net income of $101,946, upon which he paid a tax of $34,530, and for 1939, a net income of $251,715, upon which he paid a tax of $130,430. Substantially all the gross income disclosed by these returns was from his gambling operations.
An accountant for the .Government computed Johnson’s actual income for the year 1936, at $547,942; for the year 1937, $1,-047,129; for 1938, $935,353, and for 1939, $961,504.
The Government sought to sustain the charge that Johnson failed to repórt all of his taxable income for the years 1936 to 1939, inclusive, on two distinct theories:
(a) By undertaking to prove that he owned a group of gambling houses operated in and about Chicago and that all the checks cashed, money deposited and currency exchanged by persons operating these gambling houses were income from these gambling houses, and therefore that the aggregate of these banking transactions was taxable income which was in excess of the amount of net income which he reported; and
(b) By offering proof that he expended in said years more cash than he had available for spending, according to the income reported.
Each of the co-defendants except Brown was the operator of one or more gambling houses named in the indictment. Brown was the manager of the Lawrence Avenue Currency Exchange which handled funds and checks brought to it from various gambling houses. The total amount of money and checks handled by this and other exchanges and banks for the respective years, was, according to the Government’s contention, the income of Johnson for such years.
This theory necessarily is predicated upon the premise that Johnson was the sole owner and proprietor and entitled to all the income from such houses. The soundness of the theory must be tested by the premise upon which it is constructed. This basic proposition the Government sought to establish by circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon, in a general way, were proven by witnesses who were patrons, or who were minor employees of the various gambling houses, to the effect that Johnson frequently visited such houses, talked with persons who were in charge, exercised influence in the hiring of some of the employees, exercised certain control over the policies of operation, that the same group of workmen did construction and maintenance work at several of the gambling houses, that certain bus service was provided by the same company to serve the places, that the same accountants served Johnson and the other defendants in the preparation of their income tax returns, that large quantities of $100 bills were taken by the operators of the several gambling houses in cashing checks and exchanging currency, and that Johnson used large quantities of bills of the same denomination in paying the purchase price and for improvements on properties owned by him or in which he was interested. Johnson denied that he owned any of said gambling houses, or that he had any interest in the banking transactions, and offered evidence to show that the gambling houses were owned respectively by certain of those named in the indictment as co-defendants.
We have carefully examined the testimony on this theory of the Government’s case and we are of the opinion that, considering it in the light most favorable to the Government, as we must do, the most that can be said is that the proof discloses Johnson had an interest in the gambling houses. The evidence does not show that he was the sole owner and therefore entitled to all the proceeds. The Government’s contention on this theory of the case must rest upon the assumption that he owned the entire interest in the houses; that the total of all the business transactions at the currency exchanges and banks represented income from such houses, and that such income was paid to Johnson. It is not claimed that there is any proof that Johnson actually received this income. Such fact, if it be a fact, must be inferred from the other assumptions which we have mentioned. As already stated, Johnson reported a large income from his gambling transactions for each of the years in question, and to say that his interest in the gambling houses was such as to entitle him to an income greater than that reported is to indulge in rank speculation. If Johnson had reported no income for those years, a different situation would have been presented. We have no hesitancy in holding that the verdict can not be supported upon this theory.
On the expenditure theory, however, the case is more favorable to the Government. This theory was sought to *125be established by proving a statement purported to have been made by Johnson on January 1, 1932, that he had'cash on hand in the amount of $78,000. Thereafter, his income, as disclosed by his returns and his expenses, was shown year by year. The expenses, as shown by the Government from 1932 to 1939, were greatly in excess of his income for the same period. Admittedly, under this theory, the proof failed to establish the charge as to the year 1936. His income as report ed for that year, plus what he had on hand at the beginning of the year, exceeded his expenditures by more than $184,000. For the year 1937, however, his expenditures exceeded his income by $106,000; for 1938, by $367,000, and for 1939, by $151,000. True, there is a dispute as to many of the items involved in these calculations, and as to some of them, a serious dispute. We are of the opinion, however, that the proof of his income on this so-called expenditure theory was sufficient to present a jury question. As the proof on this theory, however, does not support the charge as to the year 1936, (count one) Johnson’s motion for a directed verdict as to that count should have been allowed. As to the other counts, it was properly denied.
The motion for a directed verdict on behalf of the co-defendants should have been allowed as to counts one, two, three and four. What we have said heretofore concerning the nature of the offense charged is largely determinative. The charge against Johnson was not a continuing one and the offense, if committed, was by the filing of a false return on the 15th day of March of each year. There is no evidence and no contention that the co-defendants had anything to do with the preparation of these returns or that they had any knowledge or information as to their contents. Acts performed and statements made by them before the commission of the offense by Johnson are not sufficient to justify their conviction as aiders and abettors. We need not stop to inquire what distinction there is, if any, between aiders and abettors and a conspirator, for the reason that the case was presented on the theory that there was a distinction. It was so recognized in the indictment and throughout the trial. The evidence which the Government relies upon indiscriminately to establish the charge in the substantive counts, and the conspiracy count, however, was sufficient to require submission to the jury upon the latter charge. As to this count, therefore, the motion for a directed verdict was properly denied as to all defendants.
The defendants severely criticize a large amount of evidence admitted against them. After a study of the record in this respect, we are not convinced that any of it, with the exception later referred to, is such as to require a reversal. In a case of this character, much must be left to the discretion of the trial court. A large part of the evidence complained of was proper as to the conspiracy count, but improper as to the substantive counts. The fact that it is not relevant as to the latter does not require its exclusion as to the former. Typical of such evidence was the income tax returns filed by the co-defendants for the years covered by the indictment. They were properly admissible, we think, under the conspiracy count but should have been limited thereto. We are unable to see how they were material against any of the defendants as to the other counts. On the other hand it is difficult to see how their admission was harmful. In fact, it is our view that if they had any effect, they were beneficial to the defendants rather than harmful. These returns disclose a substantial income on the part of the co-defendants who, according to the Government’s theory, were mere employees of Johnson in the operation of various gambling houses. The amount of income reported indicates that such co-defendants had an interest in such houses rather than that they were mere employees of Johnson as contended. It would therefore seem that they had no prejudicial effect.
Another line of testimony, properly subject to criticism in our opinion, was that given by scores of witnesses as to every conceivable detail concerning the operation of gambling houses. Some of this was relevant to the contention that Johnson was the owner and operator of the houses. On the other hand much of it was wholly irrelevant to any issue in the case. A glaring example of such testimony was given by the witness Spanker-en. He testified as having gambled at some of the houses mentioned in the indictment. After losing $16,000, he quit gambling. A law suit was filed by his mother-in-law against a number of persons, including the defendant Johnson and co-defendants Sommers and Hartigan, apparently under a *126Statute authorizing recovery of losses sustained at gambling. The suit was settled with a lawyer representing Sommers for $1,000, and the promise of a political appointment. It appears to be the Government’s theory that this evidence proves ownership by Johnson. There is nothing to connect him with the incident, however, except the fact that he w-as named as a defendant in the suit. There is nothing to indicate that he had anything to do with settling the law suit or that he paid or promised anything for a settlement. This testimony did not prove, or tend to prove, ownership. The most that can be said is that it tended to show that the mother-in-law must have thought Johnson had an interest in the gambling house as he was made a defendant. By the same token,, however, she must have thought that all the other defendants likewise had such an interest. Somé of the testimony complained of pertained to gambling houses with which the defendants were not shown or claimed to have had the slightest connection. A great amount of time was consumed in proving that gambling houses operated upon a large scale. This was irrelevant to any issue in the case, especially in view of the fact that the Government did not rely upon losses sustained by individual patrons in determining Johnson’s income. There was no issue in the case as to the occupation of Johnson or the co-defendants. By Johnson’s tax returns, he had disclosed an enormous income from gambling operations, and the returns of the co-defendants disclosed substantial incomes. The offense charged was evasion of income tax — not gambling or operating gambling houses. ' A person reading the record, without knowledge of the charge, could reasonably conclude that the defendants were tried on the latter offense. There is room for argument that the admission of such testfrnony in wholesale quantities was prejudicial. To what extent this may be true, we need not decide. It must be remembered that the defendants were admitted gamblers engaged in the operation of gambling houses on a large scale. It would seem they are not in a very good position to complain of that part of the testimony which merely disclosed the magnitude of their operations.
We shall now refer to the testimony given by one Frank J. Clifford who testified for the Government, purportedly as an expert witness. It is contended by the defendants that his testimony invaded the province of the jury. On the other hand the Government • contends that he testified in response to proper hypothetical questions. He qualified as an expert accountant and that he had been in the employ of the Government as a Revenue Agent for five years. So far as material to the question now under consideration, he first testified that the amount of currency delivered to the Lawrence Avenue Currency Exchange between the months of July, 1938, and September, 1939, was $1,289,000. So far as is shown by the bill of exceptions contained in the record, he then, of his own volition, stated: “I have made an analysis and computation based on Governments exhibits (naming over 400 exhibits) and other evidence in the record to determine the amount of net cash income reported by the defendant William R. Johnson for the years 1932 to 1939, inclusive.”
He was asked to state the amount, and after doing so, volunteered the statement that he had made a computation of Johnson’s expenditures for the years 1932 to 1939, inclusive. In response to a question he gave the result of such computation and again volunteered that he had made a computation as to the excess of expenditures over net cash income for the same period of time. In response to a question, he gave the result of such computation. He then volunteered the statement: “With the exhibits just a moment ago enumerated, and the other evidence in the record, I have made a computation to determine the total' amount of gross income of the defendant Johnson for the calendar year 1936.”
The examination of this witness (omitting the numerous objections by defendant’s counsel) proceeded as follows:
“Q. What is the amount, from your computation, of the gross income of the defendant Johnson for the calendar year 1936, according to your computation?
“The Court: You are making reference to those exhibits and the evidence in the record ?
“Mr. Hurley: He used those as a basis for his computation.
“The Court: Overruled.
“The Witness: $547,942.38.
“I am able to state the amount of tax still due by the defendant Johnson to the United States for the calendar year 19$6, after allowing credit for the amount of tax shown on defendant’s tax return for the year as shown by Government’s Exhibit R-10, in evidence.
*127“Q. And what is the total amount of tax still due the United States, according to your computation, for the year 1936?
“The Witness: $268,041.09.”
Without a question the witness stated “I have made a computation based on the list of exhibits which you have read to me and the other evidence in the case to determine the total amount of Johnson’s net income for the calendar year 1937.
“Q. What is that amount?
“The Witness: $1,047,129.77.”
Again, without being questioned, he stated:
“I am able to state the amount of tax still due by Johnson for the calendar year 1937, after allowing credit for the amount of tax shown on Johnson’s return for that year.
“Q. And what is the total amount of tax still due to the United States, according to your computation for the calendar year 1937?
“The Witness: $588,064.20.”
The same character of question was propounded and the same character of response made as to Johnson’s net income and tax due the Government for the years 1938 and 1939. It will be noted that the witness was not asked to assume anything. It is not necessary to refer to his cross-examination in determining the propriety of his examination in chief. It plainly discloses, however, that he decided in fav- or of the Government all the controverted issues upon which his answers were predicated.
Proper and specific objections were interposed by the defendants and overruled. The mere recitation of the questions propounded and answers given by this witness demonstrates their gross impropriety.3 He was permitted to examine hundreds of exhibits, consider “all the evidence in the case” and testify as to each of the years in question the amount of Johnson’s net income and tax due thereon. In arriving at his factual conclusions, he necessarily was required to weigh the testimony on many conflicting points and to decide all controversies in favor of the Government. After this testimony the jurors were no longer required to think. The vital issues concerning which they had heard testimony for weeks had been determined and decided.
 In support of its argument that Clifford's testimony was proper, the Government cites and relies upon a number of cases in which hypothetical questions have been approved.4 There is little dispute among the authorities as to when and in what form a hypothetical question is proper. As was said by this court in the Guzik case, supra, 54 F.2d page 620: “ * * * Certainly a hypothetical question may be deemed safe from ultimate attack where there is evidence tending to prove all the facts assumed and it includes all the material facts which the evidence tends to prove and which bear upon the subject with regard to which the expert is asked to express an opinion.”
The reason an answer to such a question does not invade the province of the jury is aptly stated in Travelers Ins. Co. v. Drake, supra, 89 F.2d page 50: “ * * * The truth of facts assumed by the hypothetical question as within the probable range of the evidence, as a basis to support the hypothetical question, is a question of fact for the determination of the jury to find with the other submitted facts upon a fair submission of the issue, and it must determine whether the basis upon which the hypothetical question rests has been established. * * *”
None of the cases relied upon by the Government has any application to the instant situation for the reason that by no stretch of the imagination can the questions be treated as hypothetical. Not a single question by which the objectionable answers were elicited contains any assumption or hypothesis. In fact, some of his testimony was voluntarily given. It follows that the jury was not permitted to pass upon the validity or soundness of the premise upon which the answers were based. Thus the essential element of a hypothetical question, by which it is saved from invading the province of the jury, was eliminated. In oral argument before this court, counsel for the Government, in effect, conceded that after the testimony of this wit*128ness there was nothing left for the jury to decide except the truthfulness of his testimony.
The Government contends that the cases cited by the defendants are inapplicable for the reason that “none of them involves the type of case which we are concerned with, namely an income tax prosecution.” We are unaware, however, of any reason or authority by which a different rule should be applied because of the character of the case. That a proper hypothetical question could have been framed and propounded, we do not doubt. That such was not the case is so plainly and conclusively demonstrated as to admit of no dispute. We are of the view that the testimony of this witness, going to the very heart of the controverted issue and invading the province of the jury as it did, was so prejudicial and damaging that it alone would require a reversal of the judgment.
It would serve no good purpose to further extend this opinion by a discussion of the many other errors assigned. We have endeavored to limit our discussion to the more important ones, — those relating to substance which can not be aided by verdict, and which affect the substantial rights of the defendants. In our study of the record and in preparing the opinion, we have endeavored to keep in mind a basic concept of American jurisprudence which, from time immemorial, has taught that every person charged with crime, regardless of his occupation or station in life, is entitled to a fair and impartial trial upon the issue or issues tendered by a legal indictment, returned by a Grand Jury empowered to act.
In view of what we have said, it necessarily follows that the judgment must be reversed. It is so ordered.

 The Terms for the District Court of the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois are fixed by Statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 152, to be held on the first Mondays in February, March, April, May, June, July, September, October and November, and the third Monday in December.

 Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480, 38 S.Ct. 168, 62 L.Ed. 414; Mullaney v. United States, 9 Cir., 82 F.2d 638; Madigan v. United States, 10 Cir., 23 F.2d 180; Collins v. United States, 8 Cir., 20 F.2d 574.

 United States v. Spaulding, 293 U.S. 498, 506, 55 S.Ct. 273, 79 L.Ed. 617; Dexter v. Hall, 15 Wall. 9, 82 U.S. 9, 26, 21 L.Ed. 73; Wilkes v. United States, 9 Cir., 80 F.2d 285, 291; United States v. Stephens, 9 Cir., 73 F.2d 695, 704.

 Travelers Ins. Co. v. Drake, 9 Cir., 89 F.2d 47, 50; Gleckman v. United States, 8 Cir., 80 F.2d 394; Guzik v. United States, 7 Cir., 54 F.2d 618, 620; City of Port Washington v. Thacher, 7 Cir., 245 F. 94, 96.