United States v. Crockett
435 F.3d 1305, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 798, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2326 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court reviews a district court's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions for abuse of discretion or plain error, but must remand for resentencing if the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were applied as mandatory in violation of United States v. Booker, which rendered them advisory.
Facts:
- Between 1993 and 1997, Blayde Lynn Crockett promoted 'trust' schemes designed to thwart tax laws.
- Chuck Reed, a tax protestor, invited Crockett to Wyoming to present his trust schemes to the Reed family and their family-owned corporate business, Nuway, Inc.
- With Crockett's expertise, the Reeds dissolved Nuway, Inc. and established a 'business trust' called Nuway Management Trust, along with subordinate trusts for their mobile kitchen and shower units.
- Crockett served as trustee for Nuway Management Trust and the subordinate trusts, pre-signing checks, while the Reed siblings retained all operational control of the business.
- Crockett advised the Reeds to establish individual personal trusts, into which they transferred title to their homes, cars, and other personal property without sale, using federal tax numbers and managing the trusts themselves.
- The personal trusts allowed the Reeds to divert approximately fifty percent of their earnings and claim substantial personal living expenses (e.g., mortgage, auto payments, utilities, home improvements) as tax deductions, significantly reducing their individual income tax liability.
- To evade taxes on Nuway's 1994 earnings of over $2.1 million, Crockett recommended an offshore charitable donation and prepared a distribution to Crystal Diversified, an Austrian company he established, reducing Nuway's reported 1994 tax liability to zero.
- Crockett assisted the Reeds in wiring $500,000 to an Isle of Man bank account, then transferring funds to the Austrian Crystal Diversified account, and later repatriated these funds for the Reeds, receiving payment for his services from the Austrian entities.
- Eventually, IRS agents visited Nuway, leading to the Reeds filing amended tax returns, paying back taxes, and pleading guilty to various tax crimes.
Procedural Posture:
- Blayde Lynn Crockett was charged in a four-count indictment with conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and three counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false and fraudulent tax returns.
- A jury found Crockett guilty on all four counts.
- Crockett filed a motion for Judgment in Spite of Jury Verdict, which the district court denied.
- The district court sentenced Crockett to seventy months’ incarceration.
- Crockett, as Defendant-Appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with the United States of America as Plaintiff-Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or by denying motions related to grand jury and false testimony, and was Crockett's sentence legally permissible given the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker?
Opinions:
Majority - McKay, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or by denying motions related to grand jury and false testimony, but yes, Crockett's sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with United States v. Booker. Regarding the trial errors, the court first found no plain error in limiting the cross-examination of witness Marilyn Reed because defense counsel failed to make an adequate offer of proof under Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(2), failing to explain the expected content or grounds for admissibility of the excluded evidence. Second, the court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing cross-examination of Crockett regarding his failure to file personal tax returns. When an accused testifies, they waive their privilege against self-incrimination, opening the door to cross-examination on relevant facts affecting credibility, particularly under the doctrine of 'specific contradiction,' as Crockett had claimed he would never assist anyone in cheating on taxes (citing Walder v. United States). Third, the court found no abuse of discretion in refusing jury instructions on grantor trusts (26 U.S.C. §§ 671, 673-78) because legal decisions are for the court, not expert witnesses, and the factual evidence showed the trusts were shams for tax fraud and Nuway continued to operate as a corporation, remaining taxable as such (citing Specht v. Jensen, United States v. Sabino). Fourth, there was no fatal variance between the indictment's charge of understated total income (line 22) and the government's proof of understated wage and salary income (line 7), as line 22 is arithmetically derived from line 7 (citing United States v. Reynolds). Fifth, the court denied motions related to grand jury testimony, finding Marilyn Reed's statements were not obviously contradictory and no deliberate prosecutorial attempt to sway the grand jury was shown (citing United States v. Wolny). Sixth, the court found no due process violation under Napue v. Illinois regarding Roi Delene Reed Jacobs' initial confused testimony about her plea agreement, as the defense used the disclosed plea agreement to clarify the matter on cross-examination, and no knowing reliance on false testimony by the prosecutor was established. Lastly, the court declined to conduct a cumulative error analysis as it found no individual errors. However, regarding sentencing, the court agreed that Crockett’s sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker. This Supreme Court decision rendered the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory, not mandatory. The district court's application of the Guidelines as mandatory violated Crockett's Sixth Amendment rights. While trial courts must consult and consider the Guidelines on remand, they are not bound by them, and facts guiding discretion under an advisory system do not need to be found beyond a reasonable doubt, except for facts supporting a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum (citing Booker, United States v. Frederick).
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance on appellate review standards for various trial errors, reinforcing that unpreserved issues are subject to plain error review, and that a defendant testifying opens the door to cross-examination on credibility, including past conduct that contradicts direct testimony. More significantly, it affirms the post-Booker sentencing landscape for federal courts within the Tenth Circuit, ensuring that sentences imposed under the previously mandatory Guidelines system are reviewed and, if necessary, remanded for resentencing under the now-advisory framework. This ruling underscores the importance of proper preservation of issues for appeal and guides district courts in applying the Guidelines as a consultative, rather than binding, framework, influencing countless federal criminal cases after Booker.
