Court Opinion

ID: 9445473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:30:03.288835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:16.948436
License: Public Domain

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
My initial position separately stated in United States v. Brodson, 7 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 97, 100 remains unchanged. Now I am recording my views on current phases of the appeal because the court retained jurisdiction, and recently I participated at the en banc hearing granted subsequent to three separate opinions handed down, (United States v. Brodson, 7 Cir., October 31, 1956, No. 11648) by a panel which heard oral arguments after the motion to transfer was first denied.
Of course the correctness of the ruling below is the question before us, but when it now and currently is said “we have no jurisdiction to decide, in advance of a decision of the district court, questions which may arise in the future,” I part company with the majority. The fallacy embedded in the quoted statement is generated by circular reasoning. Jurisdiction is disavowed by tacitly classing the situation as premature1 and the situation is rated as premature so that the conclusion will reflect lack of jurisdiction.
This record is r,eplete with investigation, affidavits, documents and conferences utilized 2 by the district judge before he finally ruled. See e. g. 234 F.2d 97. Allowing another bite at the judicial apple in the district court evades solution of a serious question squarely facing us today.
*113The salient part of the order brought here for review provides:
“3. The defendant’s motion of August 15, 1955, to dismiss the indictment upon the grounds that the initiation of a criminal prosecution for tax evasion during the pendency of a jeopardy assessment and accompanying liens deprives the defendant of liberty and property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and to the effee-tive assistance of counsel for his defense, in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution be and it hereby is granted and the indictment be and it is hereby dismissed.”
A reading of the district judge’s opinion, reported as United States v. Brod-son, D.C.Wis.1955, 136 F.Supp. 158, brings into clear focus his reasons for dismissing the indictment. They ought not to be lightly cast aside by a remand from this level. Under Rule 12, Fed. Rules of Criminal Procedure pre-trial motions, such as Brodson’s, are addressed to the sound discretion of the lower court. Takeguma v. United States, 9 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 437. I am satisfied that the constitutional questions raised by Brodson could be considered prior to the introduction of evidence on the issues presented by the indictment.
I would define our problem within the framework of organic law, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall * * have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” U. S. Constitution, Amendment VI. Recurring to such an elementary principle, perhaps, suggests that the drafters of the Constitution were neither confronted with income tax fraud prosecutions nor the accountants’ syllogism called “the net word theory.” But the inescapable interpretation problem presented by this appeal must be answered in the context of modern society. The Amendment’s word “assistance” is the key. Fortunately there is more than trace of the belief held by judges, law-Yers and treatise writers that fair play i*1 criminal eases is not altogether an outlandish notion.3 Yet experience has demonstrated that the label “criminal” tied to a human being before conviction all too frequently blurs vision and judgment of enforcement and administrative officers. One need only recall the pathetic humorless statement of a prosecutor to a “badman” — “after a fair trial we will hang you.”
Mr. Justice Sutherland speaking for the majority in Powell v. State of Alabama, 1932, 287 U.S. 45, 57, 53 S.Ct. 55, 59, 77 L.Ed. 158 on the point (coming from the state level, to be sure) of denial of the right to counsel and opportunity for trial preparation, said:
“In any event, the circumstance lends emphasis to the conclusion that during perhaps the most critical period of the proceedings against these defendants, that is to say, from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, when consultation, thorough-going investigation and preparation were vitally important, the defendants did not have the aid of counsel in any real sense, although they were as much entitled to such aid during that period as at the trial itself.” (Italics added.)
I am well aware of the Powell court’s own limitation, 287 U.S. 45, 71, 53 S.Ct. 55, of what it considered as the question for decision. Yet I cannot read the passage quoted as completely estranged from the decision point. That the prosecution’s brief tells us of an inability to *114locate any case where “it has been held that the services of a lay expert are essential to the effective assistance of counsel” is unavailing. We are considering constitutional principles, not examining metes and bounds descriptions for a title to pasture land.
A similar thread runs through Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 76, 62 S.Ct. 457, 467, 86 L.Ed. 680 in the frequently quoted line: “The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.”
There are many concepts of the word “assistance.” They range from judicial notions expressed in cases involving parties to crime and the attendant problems of accessorial liability, to Old Age Assistance. When examined in connection with the constitutional guaranty, courts have reversed convictions despite the physical presence of a law license holder at the defendant’s side. United States v. Venuto, 3 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 519; United States v. Bergamo, 3 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 31.
The district judge was right, in my opinion, for rejecting Rule 28, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., as an escape hatch.4 What was said in Coplon v. United States, 1951, 89 U.S. App.D.C. 103, 191 F.2d 749, 759 supplies a clue: “These cases [collected in the opinion] unequivocally establish the principle that the two Amendments guarantee to persons accused of crime the right privately to consult with counsel both before and during trial. This is a fundamental right which cannot be abridged, interfered with, or impinged upon in any manner.” Rule 28 follows:
“The court may order the defendant or the government or both to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations. The coiirt may appoint any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties, and may appoint witnesses of its own selection. An expert witness shall riot be appointed by the court unless he consents to act. A witness so appointed shall be informed of his d,uties by the court at a conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate. A witness so appointed shall advise the parnés of his findings, if any, and may thereafter be called to testify by the court or by any party. He shall be sujbject to cross-examination by each party. The court may determine the reasonable compensation of such a witness and direct its paymeht out of such funds as may be provided by law *
(Italics added.)
Even if I amj unduly optimistic and assume there are' funds provided by law to compensate experts, there is nothing showing in this record that the government auditors would approve a voucher submitted by an' expert failing in rendering services to both sides. In short, I am troubled by the mandatory word “shall” in Rule ¡28 and, doubting the practicality of the prosecution’s offer to waive disclosure to it of the expert’s findings5 “before the trial” (Brief for U.S. p. 5), would say the district judge correctly ruled.
“Wilfulness” i$ one of the critical elements in prosecuitions under I.R.C.1939, § 145(b), 26 U.S.C. § 145(b). That mental factor is inextricably interwoven into evidence demonstrated by the net worth theory. Though ¡the Supreme Court in Holland v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 121, 139, 75 S.Ct. 127, 137, 99 L.Ed. 150, approved the view that wilfulness “cannot be inferred ’ from the mere un der-*115statement of income,” certainly the impact of net worth evidence on a jury is devastating even when independent proof is absent. Substantial unexplained increases in net worth require detailed analysis, and unless the defense is aware of them, and can combat this contemporary progeny of an application of funds statement, the result may be disastrous. But it requires a competent accountant aiding the defense to pick its way among such evidentiary rubble in these cases. For example, an experienced attorney has pointed out, Avakian, Net Worth Computations as Proof of Tax Evasion, 10 Tax L.R. 431, 448-449 (1955): “But the first big inroad on the doctrine that tax evasion requires proof of an evil motive is likely to come in the area of net worth prosecutions. This is due to the fact that a net worth computation glosses over the question of intent. Technical adjustments are usually eliminated in a ‘specific item’ case, not so much out of consideration for the defendant as from fear that defense counsel may exploit the non-fraudulent items to his advantage. * * * After all, the bigger the net worth ‘bulge,’ the greater the chance of conviction.”
While I do not accept statements simply because they appear in law reviews or journals, what has just been quoted does point up a fragment of the problem confronting defense counsel in these cases. If society merely wants automatic convictions then a hamstrung defense will facilitate achievement of that shabby aim, but if society desires that courts engage in a search for truth, before punishing, then I would avoid being stingy with defense materials.
Holland v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 121, 125-127, 75 S.Ct. 127, 130-132, 99 L.Ed. 150 manifests some awareness of the current and forces influencing the adjudicatory process when the net worth theory supplies buoyancy for the prosecution’s case:
“Nevertheless, careful study indicates that it [net worth theory] is so fraught with danger for the innocent that the courts must closely scrutinize its use. * * *
“ * * * the method requires assumptions, among which is the equation of unexplained increases in net worth with unreported taxable income. Obviously such an assumption has many weaknesses. * * *
“ * * * There is great danger that the jury may assume that once the Government has established the figures in its worth computations, the crime of tax evasion automatically follows. The possibility of this increases where the jury, without guarding instructions, is allowed to take into the jury room the various charts summarizing the computations ; bare figures have a way of acquiring an existence of their own, independent of the evidence which gave rise to them. * * *
“When there are no books and records, willfulness may be inferred by the jury from that fact coupled with proof of an understatement of income. But when the Government uses the net worth method, and the books and records of the taxpayer appear correct on their face, an inference of willfulness from net worth increases alone might be unjustified, especially where the circumstances surrounding the deficiency are as consistent with innocent mistake as with willful violation. On the other hand, the very failure of the books to disclose a proved deficiency might indicate deliberate falsification.”
A charge to the jury, in my opinion, resplendent in law, logic, and learning could not repair the ravages of an unfair trial. In substance, the district judge reasoned to the conclusion that the complicated nature of the case to be presented against Brodson would render a trial engaged in by inadequately equipped defense counsel so likely to result in “injustice as to be fundamentally unfair.” His view is predicated upon a searching *116analysis of the situation6 at first hand. By stating we are intellectually unequipped with “prescience,” as the majority claims, to cope with this one little set of facts, implies that the trial judge is similarly disabled. I disagree. This is an unusual case, to be sure yet, paraphrasing Mr. Justice Frankfurter speaking for the majority in Rochin v. People of State of California, 1952, 342 U.S. 165, 173, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183, this situation is not a sport in our constitutional law but an application of general principles. What the Rochin court majority, 342 U.S. 165, 173, 72 S.Ct. 205, 210, pointed up, has significance here:
“Due process of law, as a historic and generative principle, precludes defining, and thereby confining, these standards of conduct more precisely than to say that convictions cannot be brought about by methods that offend ‘a sense of justice’ * * .* »
Of course Rochin arose on the state level and required squaring with the Fourteenth Amendment, yet I think the following theme helpful in this appeal:
“The faculties of the Due Process Clause may be indefinite and vague, but the mode of their ascertainment is not self-willed. In each case ‘due process of law’ requires an evaluation based on a disinterested inquiry pursued in the spirit of science, on a balanced order of facts exactly and fairly stated, on the detached consideration of conflicting claims * * on a judgment not ad hoc and episodic but duly mindful of reconciling the needs both of continuity and of change in a progressive society.” 342 U.S. 165, 173, 72 S.Ct. 205, 209.
The jeopardy assessment involved here was levied before August 14, 1953, hence the abatement provision of § 6861(g), Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 68A Stat. 834 was unavailable. Regs. 105, Section 81.74; 1955-1: T.D. 6126, Cum.Bull. 466 (1955), 26 Code Fed.Regs. §§ 39.273, 39.273-1 (1956). To this extent the present appeal differs from cases arising on jeopardy assessments made after August, 1953.
If the statute of limitations were not lurking in the background of this case, I dare say the prosecution’s interest might have long since flagged. But I refuse to let the threat of time expiration deter me from the key issue. I would affirm.

. From the record (T. R. 115) the trial judge appeared alert to such a point, e. g., “The Court: What will transpire on the trial which will give the court more information than is before the court now in affidavit form?”
“Mr. Hilgendorf (Assistant United States Attorney): I would like to come to that point * *
After reading roughly 150 printed pages of record and substantial briefing I have yet to find when and where the “point” was reached.
Following the oral argument on October 17, 1955, defendant filed three affidavits as to his inability to finance the preparation of his defense. (R. 88, 96, 107). These uncontroverted affidavits establish, inter alia, the following:
1. The levying of jeopardy assessments and tax liens on October 29, 1951, immediately rendered the defendant insolvent. (R. 89).
2. This insolvency has been continuous. (R. 89).
3. In the absence of said levies and liens, defendant would be solvent. (R. 89).
4. As a result, defendant lacks funds to finance effective preparation of his defense. (R. 89).
5. No person, firm or corporation holds any money or assets not known to the government as agent or trustee for the defendant and/or subject to his control or withdrawal. (R. 89, 100, 108-109).
6. As a result of defendant’s inability to pay fees and disbursements, defendant’s former attorney withdrew from the case. (R. 65, 89).
Defendant’s court-appointed counsel filed an affidavit on|October 24, 1955, stating that the services of skilled certified public accountants were necessary in the preparation and trial of this case. (R. 91). This fact is uncontroverted. (R. 141). Following the filing of defendant’s first affidavit (R. 88) and of his counsel’s affidavit (R. 91) on October 25, 1955, Judge Grubb invited the United States Attorney to make any objections to the affidavits. (R. 93). By letter filed November 1, 1955, the United States Attorney propounded six questions relating to defendant’s first affidavit (R. 94). In reply defendant filed such an affidavit on November 7, 1955 (R. 96).
On November 8, ¡1955, Judge Grubb invited criticism of said affidavit by the government. (R. 101). On November 10, 1955, the United States Attorney and the District Director of Internal Revenue filed affidavits. (R. 102, 105). The latter states that the sum of $78,244.41 had been levied upon and that the affiant was holding other assets, not as yet reduced to cash. On November 10, 1955, defend-filed a third affidavit relating to his financial condition.
On November 17, 1955, the United States Attorney advised that the Internal Revenue Service could not and would not release funds to the defendant under existing law. (R. 109).

. Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 1956, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891; Frank, Administration of Criminal Justice, 1953, 15 F.R.D. 95, 101; Bliss, Defense Detective, 47 J.Crim.L. & Crim.P.S. 264 (1956); A.L.I. Model Code of Evidence, Rule 403 (1942).
See Donnelly’s review of Beany, The Bight to Counsel in American Courts, 64 Yale L.R. 1089, 1094 (1955); Cross, “The Assistance of Counsel for Ms Defense”. Is This Becoming a Meaningless Guarantee? 38 A.B.A.J. 995 (1952).

. In its brief at page 18, tbe Government makes this concession:
“We submit that Rule 28 gives the court broad power to appoint expert witnesses, including an accountant, in a crim-mal tax case if such testimony is deemed necessary.” |

. The implication^ found in Himmelfarb v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 924, are not complete answers to the problem shaped Jjy his appeal.

. Burns and Rachlin, Trial by Net Worth, 33 Taxes 121 (1955); Lipton, Current Problems in the Tax Fraud Field, 1955 Wis.L.R. 416 (1955).
The Bill of Particulars (T. R. 25 to 28) show that “additions to income are determined on the net worth and expenditures method.”