Court Opinion

ID: 9471337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:29:32.148608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:21.608443
License: Public Domain

PORTER, Senior District Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would not reverse on the ground that it was error to partially deny defendant’s third motion for continuance, the subsequent motion for severance or on any of the other grounds asserted for reversal.
Denial of Motion for Severance and Motion for Continuance
First, defendant “ ‘contributed to the circumstance which [gave] rise to the request for a continuance ...’” Linton v. Perini, 656 F.2d 207, 210 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1162, 102 S.Ct. 1036, 71 L.Ed.2d 318 (1982), quoting United States v. Burton, 584 F.2d 485, 490 (CA D.C.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1069, 99 S.Ct. 837, 59 L.Ed.2d 34 (1979). See also United States v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281, 1286 n. 5 (5th Cir.1976).
Second, there was nothing inherently prejudicial in the granting of a limited (one week that turned into two) continuance. United States v. Knight, 443 F.2d 174, 178 (6th Cir.1971). And there was no showing of actual prejudice. Id. 177.
To elaborate we first note a statement by the Court in United States v. Sahley, 526 F.2d 913, 917 (5th Cir.1976): “[understanding of this issue [request for a continuance] requires us to set the circumstances in per*867spective.” Also it is well to keep in mind what the Supreme Court said in Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 850, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964) — “[t]here are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the Trial Judge at the time the request is denied.”
The circumstances leading up to the limited denial of the third request for continuance are reflected in the docket sheets (Joint Appendix, 1-9). These show the indictment in this case was filed August 28, 1981. Defendant first appeared with counsel on September 1,1981 (Joint Appendix, p. 3). It is not clear who that counsel was, but the next entry on the docket shows that Attorney Neil H. Fink was added to the case that same day. Of course the defendant entered a plea of not guilty when arraigned September 9, 1981 (Id., p. 3). On October 5, 1981, a trial date was set for October 19, 1981. As noted in the government’s brief, (p. 42) due to Judge Harvey’s illness, the case was transferred to Judge Guy November 17, 1981. Earlier on October 15,1981, a motion to reset the trial date had been granted (Id., p. 4) and the trial was reset from October 19 to “without date.” Judge Guy made various findings of excludable delay for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. He then granted defendant’s motion for more time to file additional motions and allowed Frederick E. Salim to be substituted as defendant’s counsel November 18, 1981. Mr. Salim then moved for adjournment of the trial until after January 4, 1982. That motion was dated November 19, 1981. Judge Guy granted the motion and adjourned the trial date until January 11, 1982, but actually the trial did not start until February 2, 1982. On December 18, 1981, a petition was filed by Salim to withdraw from the case because the plea agreement he anticipated when he agreed to represent defendant did not materialize and his schedule would not accommodate a trial. This was denied December 22, 1981 and then on January 8, 1982 there was still another motion to reset the trial date (Joint Appendix, p. 4). This was supported by a memo in which counsel said he needed more time and had conflicts. There is no mention of a need for an expert witness and of course none was named.
Judge Guy denied the motion in an Order that was filed January 14, 1982 (Joint Appendix, pp. 27-28). In this, he noted that the indictment was returned August 28, 1981 and then said:
The only reason this matter was not set for trial prior to the January 11, 1982 date was a series of fortuitous events which have already given this defendant far more time than is normal in terms of the time between indictment and trial. This case was originally assigned to Judge Newblatt in Flint and was reassigned to Judge Harvey in Bay City. This reassignment resulted in a delay. Judge Harvey then became ill and, in order to aid Judge Harvey in connection with speedy trial problems that he might have with his criminal docket, this case was reassigned to this court. Immediately upon reassignment to this court, this court met with counsel for the defendant and an agreed trial date of January 11, 1982 was set. At no time was there any representation made to the court that this date was agreed to on the basis of the fact that there was going to be a plea....”
(Id. p. 27).
On January 12, 1982, there was a consent order for substitution of counsel. Mr. DuMouchel was substituted in place of Salim. After that, there were motions for severance, separate trials, to dismiss Count I, motions in limine, all of which were denied or otherwise acted upon and the trial finally began February 2, 1982, as noted above (Joint Appendix, p. 6).
It is significant that in the motion to adjourn the trial date filed by defendant’s second attorney (Joint Appendix, p. 21), he stated as follows: “That every effort was made by Attorney Salim to contact the respondent, Craig Wirsing, and although he *868did talk to respondent Wirsing, by telephone, it was not until December 16, 1981 that respondent came in to this petitioner’s office for an in-depth discussion regarding the Rule 11 plea offer .. .. ” After noting the trial was set for January 11,1982 (Joint Appendix, p. 22), Salim stated: “That the fact that the Respondent has been in a state other than Michigan during nearly the whole time from November 1981 to the present date has made it impossible to communicate with him and to obtain his assistance in any degree in preparation for trial or planning the defense of this cause ...” (Joint Appendix, p. 23).
Finally, we note that in the “Consent and Order of Substitution of Counsel” dated January 12, 1982, DuMouchel stated that while he was not prepared adequately to proceed, “he will be no less prepared than prior counsel and will diligently prepare for trial insofar as possible given the time available” and “no additional continuance is being sought solely as a result of this substitution, although none of the prior requests for continuance is intended to be waived thereby.” (Joint Appendix, p. 31).
Thus, DuMouchel entered the case three weeks before trial and made no request for continuance. He did not see fit to reply the following statement in the government’s brief on this assignment of error, a statement which we find persuasive and with which we therefore agree:
A review of the facts and circumstances in this case demonstrates that Judge Guy’s refusal to grant a further 60-day continuance did not deprive defendant of the effective assistance of counsel. The disputed issues at trial were relatively simple. Defense counsel argued that defendant withdrew from the conspiracy alleged in the indictment and that, because defendant possessed a cash hoard at the end of 1975, the government failed to establish an accurate opening net worth. While the government did introduce a large number of documents, those documents were provided by the government well in advance of trial. Moreover, according to Judge Guy, who became familiar with the contents of those documents during trial:
Defense counsel had adequate opportunity to review the documents ultimately offered at trial by the Government as evidenced by counsel’s decision either to stipulate to their admission at the beginning of the case or by raising objections to them through motions in limine on which he succeeded in keeping certain documents out of evidence.
(Opinion denying defendant’s motion for acquittal or new trial dated March 30,1982 at 5, quoted in government’s brief at 45).
We note that all counsel for defendant argues is that he may have been in a position to do a better job if he had an expert witness and more time for preparation. In this connection, the Court in United States v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281, 1287 (5th Cir.1976) said:
Within this general category of cases, a particularly common claim is that a continuance was necessary to interview and subpoena potential witnesses. The panels of this court that have ruled on such claims have considered the diligence of the defense in interviewing witnesses and procuring their presence, the probability of procuring their testimony within a reasonable time, the specificity with which the defense is able to describe their expected knowledge or testimony, the degree to which such testimony is expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony. A general rule recently has emerged:
A movant must show that due diligence has been exercised to obtain the attendance of the witness, that substantial favorable testimony would be tendered by the witness, that the witness is available and willing to testify, and that the denial of a continuance would materially prejudice the defendant. United States v. Miller, 513 F.2d 791, 793 (5th Cir.1975). See also United States v. Cawley, 481 F.2d 702, 705 (5th Cir.1973).
[footnotes omitted].
Something else the Court said in Uptain deserves to be noted. After pointing out *869the grounds asserted for a continuance (including the claim that there was insufficient time for preparation) the Court said:
None of these justifications for a continuance is new to this court. To the contrary, the cases are so numerous and involve such varying factual contexts and bases for decision that merely cataloging them is a task of significant proportion. We have deemed the following factors highly relevant in assessing claims of inadequate preparation time: the quantum of time available for preparation, the likelihood of prejudice from denial, the accused’s role in shortening the effective preparation time,5 the degree of complexity of the case, and the availability of discovery from the prosecution. We have also explicitly considered the adequacy of the defense actually provided at trial, the skill and experience of the attorney, any pre-appointment or pre-retention experience of the attorney with the accused or the alleged crime, and any representation of the defendant by other attorneys that accrues to his benefit. Id., 1286 [footnotes omitted, except n. 5],
The cases cited by the Uptain court at note 5, supra, bear out that the accused’s role in shortening the effective preparation time is a factor in assessing claims of inadequate preparation time in connection with a motion for a continuance. In other words, if the accused’s predicament is due to his own failure to cooperate with counsel then he should not be allowed to continue a firm trial date set far in advance on the ground that he needs more time to prepare.
Taking into account all the pertinent factors, I would affirm the Court s partial denial of the defendant’s third request for a continuance. In particular, I conclude the defendant did not use due diligence in trying to get an expert witness and there was no showing made at the time of the third motion for a continuance that a witness was available, willing to testify and that such testimony would have been favorable.
My conclusion that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying, in part, defendant’s request for a continuance applies with equal force to the denial of defendant’s motion to sever the conspiracy count from the tax evasion counts. The thrust of the majority opinion is that the same circumstance (i.e., insufficient preparation time) that demanded a continuance required alternatively that the trial judge grant severance and defer trial on the tax evasion counts.
The majority speaks of the possible “spillover” effect from trying the different types of offenses together. A “spillover” is inevitable, to some extent, any time offenses are joined for trial. See United States v. Barrett, 505 F.2d 1091, 1106 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 964, 95 S.Ct. 1951, 44 L.Ed.2d 450 (1975). The majority’s assertion that lack of adequate preparation time rendered the defense attorney “unprepared to combat the ‘spillover’ effect” is highly speculative in this case. I do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for severance under the circumstances.
Appellant raises four additional issues on appeal which have not been addressed because of the panel’s disposition of this case on the joinder issue.1 I now turn to a discussion of the remaining grounds asserted for reversal.
The Conspiracy Count
Appellant argues that the evidence shows he withdrew from the single conspiracy *870charged in Count I of the indictment2 and formed a separate, competing conspiracy in 1975 or early 1976, prior to the commencement of the statute of limitations period.3 He acknowledges that he was involved with one member of the original conspiracy (Douglas Skinner) after August 26, 1976, but contends that the government’s evidence shows that he left the Griffith-Reynolds group prior to that date. He argues that the result is a fatal variance between the offense charged in the indictment and the proof at trial, and the district court erred by failing to direct a verdict of acquittal on the conspiracy count.
“If an indictment alleges one conspiracy, but the evidence can reasonably be construed only as supporting a finding of multiple conspiracies, the resulting variance between the indictment and the proof is reversible error if the appellant can show that he was prejudiced thereby.” United States v. Warner, 690 F.2d 545, 548 (6th Cir.1982). The Warner Court found, however, that a single conspiracy does not become multiple conspiracies simply because each participant did not know every other member, or because each did not become involved in all of the activities in furtherance of the conspiracy. Id. at 549, citing Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 556-57, 68 S.Ct. 248, 256-257, 92 L.Ed. 154 (1947); United States v. Mayes, 512 F.2d 637, 642 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1008, 95 S.Ct. 2629, 45 L.Ed.2d 670 (1975) and sub nom. Cook v. United States, 423 U.S. 840, 96 S.Ct. 69, 46 L.Ed.2d 59 (1975).
The evidence at trial was consistent with a finding that a single conspiracy existed which continued into the statute of limitations period. Terry Jelinek testified that he met Wirsing and Griffith at Wirsing’s cabin at Holly, Michigan in early 1976. He was supplied with marijuana by both individuals during 1976, and by Griffith until 1978. Gregory Konrad, a driver for Reynolds, picked up marijuana in Florida and delivered it to Wirsing’s cabin in 1977, although he stated that he did not know the defendant. The evidence shows that Wirsing and Reynolds were transporting marijuana from Florida to supply the Flint, Michigan area.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62, 62 S.Ct. 457, 461, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), the proof at trial was consistent with a finding that a single, continuing conspiracy existed as charged in the indictment and that appellant was a member of that conspiracy. I conclude under the Warner analysis, supra, that there is no variance in this case.
Appellant next argues that the trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction on multiple conspiracies and to permit argument on his multiple conspiracy theory deprived him of a fair trial. As he points out, the trial court focused on the length of his involvement, and reasoned that “the jury would ... have been able to conclude that defendant remained part of the over-all conspiracy charged in the indictment ... but that different members of the conspiracy participated at different times.” (Opinion Denying Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or New Trial, p. 7).
In refusing to give a multiple conspiracy charge, the trial court relied principally on the Second Circuit’s holdings in United States v. Sir Kue Chin, 534 F.2d 1032 (1976) and United States v. Corey, 566 F.2d 429 (1977). The Sir Kue Chin and Corey decisions appear to preclude a multiple conspir*871acy analysis where a single defendant is on trial, because the defendant “could not have been prejudiced ... by spillover or otherwise. United States v. Corey, supra at 431, n. 3, citing Sir Kue Chin, supra.
Of course, appellant is not concerned with the “spillover" or “guilt by association” problem which may surface where more than one defendant is on trial. See United States v. Kenny, 645 F.2d 1323, 1336-37 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 3059, 69 L.Ed.2d 425 (1981). The theory advanced at trial was that Wirsing withdrew from the conspiracy charged and formed a new, competing conspiracy prior to the onset of the limitations period.
“In a criminal case, it is reversible error for a trial judge to refuse to present adequately a defendant’s theory of defense, especially where a proper request therefor is proffered.” United States v. Blane, 375 F.2d 249, 252 (6th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 835, 88 S.Ct. 41, 19 L.Ed.2d 96 (1967). The exact language of a requested charge need not be given, so long as the charge as a whole adequately covers the theory of the defense. Id. There must be some evidentiary foundation to support defendant’s theory. United States v. Grimes, 413 F.2d 1376, 1378 (7th Cir.1969); United States v. Young, 464 F.2d 160, 164 (5th Cir.1972).
At the outset, I fail to see an evidentiary basis for appellant’s multiple conspiracy theory on the facts of the case. There was ample evidence that defendant was involved in the marijuana business with the co-conspirators as alleged in the indictment well into the statute of limitations period. Moreover, the casual nature of a conspiracy, shifting membership, and a nonhierarchical structure do not, without more, evidence the existence of more than one general business venture. See United States v. McGrath, 613 F.2d 361, 367 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 967,100 S.Ct. 2946, 64 L.Ed.2d 827 (1980).
The critical inquiry is whether the trial court’s instructions, viewed in their entirety, were adequate. See United States v. Kenny, supra. In the case sub judice, the trial court explained the meaning and import of the applicable statute of limitations, and instructed that in order to sustain a finding of guilt, “you must find that the defendant was participating as a conspirator in the conspiracy charged in the indictment as of August 28, 1976” (Joint Appendix, pp. 688-689). The Court also instructed on the withdrawal defense. The instructions, on the whole, were sufficient to inform the jury that the defendant could only be convicted of the offense with which he was charged, and no other.
The Tax Evasion Counts
Appellant’s remaining arguments are directed against his conviction on Counts II, III and IV of the indictment, which charged him with income tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201) for the years 1976, 1977 and 1978, respectively. The government sought to prove by the net worth method that Wirsing substantially understated his taxable income on the returns which he filed for those years.
The net worth analysis is an indirect method of proving income which relies chiefly on circumstantial evidence. The government’s expert witness (IRS Agent Bednarczyk) recomputed defendant’s taxable income by determining his net worth (excess of assets at cost over liabilities) at the end of each year plus his nondeductible expenditures during the year. The difference between this figure and the net worth at the beginning of the year is treated as taxable income received during the year, see United States v. Giacalone, 574 F.2d 328, 330 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834, 99 S.Ct. 114, 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978), and is compared against the income reported by the taxpayer on his return.
When the government employs the net worth analysis, it is essential that it establish opening net worth (in this case, appellant’s net worth at the end of 1975) with reasonable certainty, because this serves as a starting point to calculate future increases in the taxpayer’s assets. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 132, 75 S.Ct. 127, 133-134, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954). The Holland Court cautioned that use of the net *872worth method requires “great care and restraint,” and instructed appellate courts to bear in mind the difficulties inherent “when circumstantial evidence ... is the chief weapon of a method that is itself only an approximation.” Id. at 129, 75 S.Ct. at 132.
Appellant claims that the evidence pointed to the existence of a “cash hoard” which dramatically increased his net worth as of December 31,1975. One immunized co-conspirator testified that there were “stash holes” on Wirsing’s Holland, Michigan property in which substantial amounts of cash were buried during 1972, 1973 and possibly 1974. Another witness testified that he retrieved $15,000 from a “stash hole” on the property in 1975 or 1976, but the money belonged to Griffith, and not to appellant. Wirsing’s sister, Marcia Kolch, testified that she saw a laundry basket in Wirsing’s bedroom with “stacks of twenties” and “stacks of hundreds” in the summer of 1976. She also said there was “always money around from the early years on. It would be, you know, anywhere Craig was” (Joint Appendix, p. 535).
The government’s expert credited Wirsing with $20,000 as the cash component of his opening net worth, based primarily on certain cash purchases made by Wirsing in the early part of 1976 and deposits in a Nevada bank account. He also recited a number of factors which he considered in discounting defendant’s “cash hoard” argument.4
I cannot agree with appellant that “The jury [was] ... called upon to choose between ‘reasonable probabilities’ of equal weight, one innocent and the other criminal.... ” United States v. Campion, 560 F.2d 751, 753 (6th Cir.1977). The testimony relied on by appellant does not establish the existence of a cash hoard just prior to January 1, 1976 substantially in excess of the cash on hand figure derived by the government’s expert witness. The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for acquittal on the tax counts.
Appellant’s final argument is that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on lesser-included offenses encompassed by § 7201. Specifically, the Court refused to give requested instructions on willful failure to supply information in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 and willful filing of a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7207. Appellant asks the Court to vacate his sentence imposed for tax evasion and resentence him under the lesser-included offenses. See United States v. Lamartina, 584 F.2d 764 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 928, 99 S.Ct. 1263, 59 L.Ed.2d 483 (1979).
The elements which the prosecution must prove in a tax evasion case are: (1) willfulness; (2) the existence of a tax deficiency; and (3) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax. Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 351, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 1010, 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965). The Sansone Court held that § 7203 or § 7207 may be lesser-included offenses to § 7201 “in an appropriate case.” Id. at 349, 85 S.Ct. at 1009. The lesser-offense charge, however,
is not proper where, on the evidence presented, the factual issues to be resolved by the jury are the same as to both the lesser and greater offenses. [Citations omitted.] In other words, the lesser offense must be included within but not, on the facts of the case, be completely encompassed by the greater. A lesser-included offense instruction is only proper when the charged greater offense requires the jury to find a disputed factual element which is not required for conviction of the lesser-included offense.
Id. at 349-350, 85 S.Ct. at 1009 [citations omitted.] As the Court observed in Keeble *873v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 208, 93 S.Ct. 1993, 1995, 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973), there must be evidence which “would permit a jury rationally to find [defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.”
Appellant contends that the jury could have found that he failed to disclose some income from marijuana sales during the prosecution years in violation of § 7203 or § 7207. He argues that he could have been convicted of these lesser offenses without the jury resolving an additional disputed issue of fact required to convict under § 7201 — the existence of a substantial tax deficiency.
Appellant’s argument is without merit. It is premised on the jury’s acceptance that a cash hoard existed at the end of 1975. This would have explained the source of funds used by Wirsing to purchase assets and pay expenses during the years 1976-1978. Because it would have been in existence prior to that period, the cash hoard would not give rise to a tax deficiency in the prosecution years.
However, if the cash hoard was the source of funds for purchases made and expenses paid during the years 1976-1978, then a rational jury could not have found the defendant guilty of violating § 7203 or § 7207 in this ease. On the facts, the only other reasonable explanation for Wirsing’s purchases and expenditures is income earned (and not reported) during the prosecution years. This income would give rise to a tax deficiency. Under the Court’s holdings in Sansone and Keeble, supra, the trial court did not err by refusing to give the requested instructions.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm appellant Wirsing’s conviction on all four counts of the indictment.

 United States v. Sahley, 526 F.2d 913 (5th Cir.1976); Thomas v. Estelle, 486 F.2d 224 (5th Cir.1973); Kroll v. United States, 433 F.2d 1282 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied sub nom. Adler v. United States, 402 U.S. 944, 91 S.Ct. 1616, 29 L.Ed.2d 112 (1971); United States v. Valdez, 418 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1969); Glenn v. United States, 303 F.2d 536 (5th Cir.1962), cert. denied sub nom. Everitt v. United States, 372 U.S. 920, 83 S.Ct. 734, 9 L.Ed.2d 725 (1963).

. The panel found that the trial court did not err by refusing to allow Skinner to testify that appellant told him that he (Wirsing) was leaving the conspiracy. See n. 5, ante. I agree with the majority insofar as it found that the defendant got this evidence before the jury. The testimony in question was elicited prior to the government’s objection to “anymore of these statements” (Joint Appendix, p. 131). The error, if any, was harmless.

. Count I of the indictment charges:
[t]hat from on or about January 1, 1972, and continuing thereafter up to and including the date of the filing of this Indictment, in the Eastern District of Michigan and elsewhere, Craig C. Wirsing, defendant herein, did knowingly, intentionally and unlawfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree together with Roy Griffith, Frank Reynolds, Jackie D. Miller, Jr., Douglas Skinner, and others whose names are both known and unknown to the grand jury to ... possess with intent to distribute and to distribute quantities of marijuana, a Schedule I Controlled Substance, in violation of Sections 841(a)(1) and 846 of Title 21, United States Code.

. The statute of limitations period commenced on August 28, 1976, or five years prior to the date of the filing of the indictment. 18 U.S.C. § 3282.

. Agent Bednarczyk’s testimony in this regard included: (1) statements made by defendant in 1976 to an architect who designed a home for defendant that he lacked funds to continue construction; (2) lack of another source of cash (i.e., from mother or father’s estate) other than the “business”; (3) purchases made on credit, late loan payments, trade-in of a vehicle to finance another purchase, all of which indicated lack of ready cash; (4) defendant’s age, and (5) testimony of defendant’s sister (Kolch) that the availability of marijuana was limited in 1975.