Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanttrialverdictwill
defendantattorneytrialverdictmotionobjectiongrand jury

Related Cases

Johnson v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9098, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,014
View Case »
People v. Morales, 25 Cal.4th 34, 18 P.3d 11, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 582, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1805, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2253
View Case »
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Perry, 361 So.2d 594
View Case »
United States ex rel. Weiner v. Siemens AG, 87 F.4th 157, 117 Fed.R.Serv.3d 798
View Case »
In re Mack, 386 Pa. 251, 126 A.2d 679
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Himmelfarb v. U.S., 175 F.2d 924, 49-1 USTC P 9313, 38 A.F.T.R. 145

Facts

Sam Ormont and Phillip Himmelfarb were charged with attempting to evade federal income tax for the years 1942 to 1944 by filing false tax returns. They operated a wholesale meat business, Acme Meat Co., and were found to have received unreported income from 'bonus' payments. The investigation revealed discrepancies in their reported income and the actual income from their business operations, leading to their indictment.

Sam Ormont and Phillip Himmelfarb were, on January 22, 1947, jointly charged by a federal grand jury with four counts under Section 145(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b).

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the defendants' actions constituted attempted income tax evasion and whether the court erred in its handling of the trial procedures, including the discharge of the jury.

The real issue presented is whether or not there was a legal necessity supporting the discharge of the first jury.

Rule

The court applied the legal principles surrounding tax evasion, specifically the requirement that a defendant must willfully attempt to evade or defeat a tax owed to the government.

It seems clear to us that the stipulation, whereby it was agreed that the stipulations, motions and objections of each attorney on behalf of one defendant should also be considered as made on behalf of the other defendant, was applicable to the ordinary procedure of the trial, and not to constitutional rights of defendants.

Analysis

The court found that the evidence presented, including admissions made by Ormont to Internal Revenue Agents and the discrepancies in their income reporting, supported the conclusion that both defendants had the intent to evade taxes. The court also ruled that the discharge of the jury was justified under the circumstances, as it was necessary to ensure a fair trial.

Thus, a court has the power to discharge a duly empaneled and sworn jury, before verdict, without abridgement of the constitutional guaranty, if there exist urgent circumstances or an emergency which by diligence and care could not have been averted and which would thwart the administration of justice.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the convictions of Himmelfarb and Ormont, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty on the charges of attempted income tax evasion.

We think the court did not abuse its discretion.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the convictions based on the evidence of tax evasion and the defendants' intent to mislead tax authorities.

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the convictions based on the evidence of tax evasion and the defendants' intent to mislead tax authorities.

You must be