Couple Claims Government Agents Tried to Influence Jury | AccountingWEB

Couple Claims Government Agents Tried to Influence Jury

The possibility that Internal Revenue Service agents and Justice Department lawyers "glared" at jurors during a recent trial will be the subject of a federal appeals court hearing, the New York Times reported.

A Nevada couple, on trial for tax evasion, claims the federal officers attempted to intimidate the jurors into reaching their guilty verdict. The hearing could result in the overturning of the tax evasion convictions of Martin Rutherford, a Reno chiropractor, and his wife, Nanja. Pending appeal, their sentences of five months in prison each and payment of $141,813 in restitution for taxes owed in 1992 and 1993 have been stayed, the Times reported.

"Nine to 15 IRS agents and Justice Department people sat in on our trial, which lasted 19 days, and then under oath some of them initially denied they had been there," Martin Rutherford said. "Then they changed their story a bit to say they were there for training."

Rutherford claims that he and his wife are the victims of a phony lawyer whose tax advice landed them in hot water with the IRS. When they hired a proper attorney, the IRS seized even more money from the couple than they owed in taxes.

The Rutherfords asked U.S. District Court Judge Edward Reed to set aside the verdict due to what they saw as intimidating behavior on the part of federal agents present during the trial. Some of the agents claim they were there for training purposes.

The jury foreman and two other jurors submitted affidavits in which they said jurors discussed the prospect of retaliation by the IRS if they acquitted the Rutherfords, the Times reported.

Reed, after the hearing, concluded that the IRS and Justice Department agents did not intend to influence the jury. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that finding Friday and said the wrong legal standard was applied.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote that the issue in question is not the intent of the government agents, but whether the jurors had reason to believe they were being tampered with, the Times reported. The appeals court did not find the jury had been influenced and ordered a hearing into the matter.

The appeals court directed Reed to reinstate or vacate the convictions based on whether he finds that the government influenced the jury's verdict, even unintentionally, the Times reported.

Wait, there's more!
There's always more at AccountingWEB. We're an active community of financial professionals and journalists who strive to bring you valuable content every day. If you'd like, let us know your interests and we'll send you a few articles every week either in taxation, practice excellence, or just our most popular stories from that week. It's free to sign up and to be a part of our community.
Premium content is currently locked

Editor's Choice

WHAT KIND OF FIRM ARE YOU?
As part of our continued effort to provide valuable resources and insight to our subscribers, we're conducting this brief survey to learn more about your personal experiences in the accounting profession. We will be giving away five $50 Amazon gift cards, and a $250 Amazon gift card to one lucky participant.
This is strictly for internal use and data will not be sold
or shared with any third parties.