Court Opinion

ID: 9482110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:40:33.590288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:46.228386
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I fully concur with Judge Martin’s thorough opinion in this case. I add only that I would adopt the following interpretation of § 6103(h)(5) given recently in a similar case:
We do not think that § 6103(h)(5) requires a tax defendant to receive the names of the venire a month or more in advance of trial, as the Hashimoto majority held. The statute itself makes no provision for such an extreme alteration of normal trial arrangements. It merely directs the Secretary of the Treasury to make certain information available upon request. Subject only to review for abuse, the district court retains discretion to ascertain the relevance and need for such information in a given case, and the proper measures to accommodate a § 6103(h)(5) request. In a tax prosecution such as this, we encourage the dis*150trict court to take reasonable and feasible steps to enable a defendant, who makes a clear and timely request, to procure § 6103(h)(5) information prior to the swearing of the jury. But we do not lay down a hard and fast rule.
In the circumstances of the present case, we hold that the approach taken by the district court — winnowing the juror pool through questions on voir dire, directing the prosecutor to verify the empaneled jurors’ answers by obtaining § 6103(h)(5) information about them from the IRS, and in fact obtaining such verification before the jury was sworn— adequately enforced both the letter and spirit of the statute.
United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 30 (1st Cir.1991).