tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post4821405142379675397..comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Comments on Federal Tax Crimes: Bad Act Evidence Relevant to the Elements of the Crime (7/21/11)Jack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-39545251882647217742011-07-21T16:47:42.344-05:002011-07-21T16:47:42.344-05:00"....At trial, the government offered—without..."....At trial, the government offered—without objection—evidence that Maxwell had failed to file personal income-tax returns from 2002 through 2007. Maxwell appeals, arguing that his personal filing history was impermissible specific-act character evidence, see Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), which the district court1 should have excluded or, at minimum, limited to a proper, non-propensity purpose, see Fed. R. Evid. 105."<br /><br />What we have here is this: No contemporaneous and specific objection to the evidence means no relief from the appellate court. Instead, it means the trial court's decision is AFFIRMED.<br /><br />What we should have here.<br /><br />It is high time for criminal defense attorneys (especially, white collar defense lawyers) to understand that the only way a client stands a snow ball's chance in hell of receiving appellate relief is, IF AND ONLY IF the record, when taken as a whole: (1) clearly reflects that there was a contemporaneous, direct, express and specific objection to the offered evidence; (2) the defense attorney demonstrated clear harm/injury...that is PREJUDICE TO A SUBSTANTIAL, PREFERABLY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT; and (3) the attorney requested one or more specific remedies such as dismissal, exclusion of evidence, exclusion of fruits/derivative evidence, mistrial, etc. <br /><br />Strategic and tactical considerations.<br /><br />An astute criminal defense attorney will make sure that objections are coupled with extensive proffers...PREFERABLY THROUGH LIVE ("old style" or, if you would, "Illinois style") WITNESS ITEM-BY-ITEM, AND IF NECESSARY, LINE-BY-LINE VOIR DIRE, as opposed to so-called "lawyer talk"...that is, lawyer proffers....or should we say "shadows of the evidence." <br /><br />The bottom line.<br /><br />The more that the record is replete with extensive objections/proffers, that is, the "real Mc Coy" and screams of prejudice to a defendant's fundamental rights, the more likely that an appellate court will find reversible error, remand for a new trial and give the defendant another clear chance for a renewed, thoroughly re-invigorated defense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com