Court Opinion

ID: 9475073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:16:34.764361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:29.768806
License: Public Domain

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority, in addressing an issue never before considered by a federal appellate court, holds that where two defendants are tried together but only one convicted, and the costs of trial would all have been incurred had either one been tried alone, the single defendant who is convicted may be *1451held liable for the full costs of the trial. The majority relies for this proposition on two district court cases and two statements in legal encyclopedia articles.
One of the two cases on which the majority relies clearly does not stand for the proposition. United States v. Troiani, 595 F.Supp. 186, 187 n. 1 (N.D.Ill.1984), holds only that when several defendants are tried together and all are convicted, each is jointly and severally liable for the full cost of trial, and any defendant paying more than his pro rata share may enforce a right of contribution against the rest. The legal encyclopedia articles to which the majority cites are similarly limited in their statements.
The second case cited by the majority, United States v. Jemison, 14 F.2d 755 (S.D.Ala.1926), does relate to the question of the allocation of costs in cases in which some defendants are convicted and some acquitted. However, the case is of little, if any, precedential value. Jemison involved the National Prohibition Act, which, unlike the Internal Revenue Code, did not contain a provision governing the assessment of court costs as a penalty. The district court judge could find “no federal statute which covers the question” nor any federal case and therefore relied on an 1887 Alabama case interpreting a state statute for his apparent conclusion that those persons convicted at a trial could be assessed the full trial costs even though others were acquitted.1 14 F.2d at 755. In the case before us, 26 U.S.C. § 7206 creates the penalty structure for willful falsification of tax returns and specifically provides for the imposition of costs. Jemison is wholly unpersuasive authority with respect to the proper construction of the Internal Revenue Code.
In my view, the majority affirms a sentence not directly “authorized by the judgment of conviction.” Pinedo v. United States, 347 F.2d 142, 148 (9th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 976, 86 S.Ct. 547, 15 L.Ed.2d 468 (1966). The excessive costs imposed are not within the contemplation of the statute providing for the imposition of costs. The purpose of 26 U.S.C. § 7206 is to deter those who would file false tax returns in a system committed to voluntary compliance. The assessment of the actual costs of prosecution against persons convicted of willful falsification is consistent with the congressional intent to create a voluntary tax system monitored by selective auditing and prosecution of tax evaders. But where the government has indicted and tried two people, as they did with Mr. and Mrs. Fowler, and convicted only one of the co-defendants, it seems both unreasonable and unnecessary to assess the entire costs of the trial against the one convicted.
There are two basic ways in which trial costs could be allocated under the statute: in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or by imposing 100% of the costs upon the defendant. While it is true that it would have cost the government just as much to try Mr. Fowler singly as with his wife, it is equally true that the government would have incurred the identical costs it incurred had it tried only Mrs. Fowler. Admittedly, the statute does not authorize the assessment of any costs against her. Thus, the majority’s windfall argument cuts both ways, with equal force.
With no authority on point, it seems to me that the better rule would be to allocate the costs ratably, in this case allocating 50% of the trial expenses to Mr. Fowler and 50% to his wife. In view of Mrs. Fowler’s acquittal, the 50% allocated to her may not be recovered under the statute.
Where the scope of the permitted penalty is unclear, the canons of statutory construction require courts to interpret criminal statutes in such a way as to resolve ambiguity in favor of a defendant. The imposition of costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7203 is a penal action; the statute is thus subject to the rule of lenity. See generally Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 387, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 2252, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980); *1452Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 178, 79 S.Ct. 209, 214, 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958) (stating the general rule). Ambiguity here should be resolved by allocating costs fairly, not by imposing additional penalties.
For the above reasons, I dissent.

. I am construing Jemison in the light most favorable to the majority. It is extremely difficult to determine what Jemison actually says or stands for.