Ronnie F. Judy - Page 13

                                               - 13 -                                                 

           v. United States, 230 F.2d 919, 925-926 (5th Cir. 1956); Gaw v.                            
           Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-531; 2 Wigmore on Evidence, sec.                             
           286(a), at 199-200 (Chadbourn rev. ed. 1979).                                              
                  According to petitioner’s account, Mr. Judy’s inheritance                           
           was the source of the amounts in controversy, and only petitioner                          
           and Mr. Judy knew that the inheritance money was secreted in an                            
           ammunition box under Mr. Judy’s bed.  Mr. Judy’s testimony would                           
           surely have had an important, if not decisive, influence upon the                          
           resolution of the factual questions on which this case turns.                              
           Petitioner has not convinced us of Mr. Judy’s inability to                                 
           testify.  The one-sentence note from Dr. Allison that petitioner                           
           submitted to the Court falls far short of providing the specific                           
           and detailed evaluation of this issue which the Court demanded                             
           and cannot fairly be interpreted to rule out the possibility of a                          
           deposition.  Under the circumstances, Mr. Judy’s availability for                          
           a deposition seems to have been largely within petitioner’s                                
           control.  A close relationship exists between them:  They are                              
           related by blood; they live together; and throughout the                                   
           negotiations between the parties and the Court on this matter                              
           petitioner has consistently purported to speak for Mr. Judy.                               
           There is ample reason to expect Mr. Judy to have cooperated with                           
           petitioner.  Petitioner’s suggestion that respondent is to blame                           
           for the failure to take Mr. Judy’s deposition is without merit.                            
           Although respondent originally subpoenaed Mr. Judy to testify at                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011