UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PAUL C. WASHBURN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the prosecutor's argument did not constitute plain error.
The defendant, a tax consultant, was convicted of preparing and presenting a fraudulent tax return for a client. This involved filing a joint return w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Power Of Attorney cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Washburn, a tax consultant, was convicted in a jury trial of violating 26 U.S.C.A. § 7206(2) by preparing and presenting a fraudulent tax return for a client. Washburn not only prepared a joint return in 1968 for his client, who was estranged from his wife, when the wife had specifically rejected the idea of jointly filing and, indeed, filed a separate return instead, but Washburn also signed the wife’s name to the return pursuant to a claimed power of attorney which he in fact did not have. In the return, certain of the wife’s losses were claimed against the husband-client’s income.
Washburn contends that the Government’s evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. We disagree. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, there was abundant evidence to support the verdict.
Finally Washburn urges that the prosecutor made an improper argument to the jury. Having failed to object to the argument in the district court Wash-burn now would have us invoke the plain error rule.
We are wholly unpersuaded that the prosecutor’s argument falls within that category of exceptional circumstances that would call for a reversal to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice. United States v. Flanagan, 5 Cir. 1971, 445 F. 2d 263; United States v. Nolte, 5 Cir. 1971, 440 F. 2d 1124. On the contrary, it is manifest from a fair reading of the argument and the trial court’s charge to the jury that the Government’s case was properly presented in summation.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Amos P. Brown, Sr., 548 F.2d 1194 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Ivey, 546 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
Kruglak v. Purdy, 578 F.2d 574 (5th Cir. 1978)
Authorities Cited
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1942)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Odis Warren Nolte, 440 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Flanagan, 445 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1971)