- 16 -
Petitioner argues that the results of the convictions for
tax evasion are inconclusive based on his acquittal on the charge
of conspiracy to defraud the United States. We are not persuaded.
It is a well established principle that a verdict of guilt
rendered by a jury cannot be attacked for inconsistency with an
acquittal on a related charge. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S.
57 (1984); United States v. Galbraith, 20 F.3d 1054 (10th Cir.
1994). Inconsistent verdicts may stand, though they clearly
infer the jury's "'assumption of a power which they had no right
to exercise, but to which they were disposed through lenity.'"
Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393 (1932) (quoting Steckler
v. United States, 7 F.2d 59, 60 (2d Cir. 1925)); see United
States v. Powell, supra at 65 ("It is equally possible that the
jury, convinced of guilt, properly reached its conclusion on the
compound offense, and then through mistake, compromise, or
lenity, arrived at an inconsistent conclusion on the lesser
offense.").
As to the application of collateral estoppel where there is
an inconsistent verdict, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit has stated that such reconciliation is best approached on
a case-by-case basis. United States v. Price, 750 F.2d 363, 366
12(...continued)
(A) with respect to the portion of the
underpayment described in paragraph (1) which is
attributable to fraud, * * *
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011