WHEELER

v.

KENTUCKY

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• United States v. Garber, 607 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1979)
  …I hypothesize, like the pure opinion testimony the majority holds should come in, goes only to the question of the credibility of the defendant’s exculpative explanation. . Neither Nordstrom v. United States, 360 F. 2d 734 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 826, 87 S.Ct. 59, 17 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966), nor United States v. Bridell, 180 F.Supp. 268 (N.D.Ill.1960), cited by the majority, support the admissibility of this expert testimony. In Nordstrom, the defendant did not argue that the alleged vagueness in the…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• United States v. Dawson, 400 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1968)
  …te of the commission of the crime, is not when the embezzlement takes place, but when the tax return is filed, for the crime of income tax evasion occurs when the return is filed. See Nordstrom v. United States, 360 F. 2d 734 (8 Cir.), cert, denied, 385 U.S. 826, 87 S.Ct. 59, 17 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966) (embezzlement May 12, 1961, return filed March, 1962). Appellant filed his return for 1961 well after the James decision, was handed down and well after he could fairly claim that the rule in that case was a surpri…
• United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160 (4th Cir. 1974)
  …vel question of embezzling prior to James but filing of returns thereafter have been the subject of appellate review. See United States v. Dawson, 400 F. 2d 194, 202 (2 Cir. 1968); Nordstrom v. United States, 360 F. 2d 734 (8 Cir. 1966), cert. den., 385 U.S. 826, 87 S.Ct. 59, 17 L.Ed.2d 63 (1966). In these cases, the courts decided that the critical time for purposes of a tax evasion prosecution under § 7201 was the date the return was due, and therefore that convictions obtained on returns filed after Jame…