Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al - Page 148




                                       - 225 -                                        

               In sum, the record in these cases reveals a scheme by                  
          Messrs. Sims and McWade to mislead the Court and manipulate the             
          test case procedure in a misplaced effort to enhance the already            
          overwhelming likelihood that respondent would prevail on the                
          merits of the Kersting adjustments and their continuing efforts             
          at the evidentiary hearing to cover up what they had done.                  
          D.   Discussion                                                             
               Petitioners unanimously advance the view that the Government           
          misconduct should be considered a structural defect.  We are                
          convinced that Messrs. Sims' and McWade's misconduct diluted the            
          adversarial character of the presentation of what the Court and             
          the other petitioners were led to believe were the Thompson and             
          Cravens test cases.  To conclude, however, that the Government              
          misconduct resulted in a structural defect in the trial of the              
          test cases, one also must accept the proposition that the harm              
          caused by the Government misconduct pervaded and altered the                
          basic constitution of the trial mechanism in all the test cases.            
               As previously indicated, Messrs. Izen and Jones contend that           
          the Government misconduct in these cases includes the alleged               
          illegal search of Mr. Kersting's office and the issuance of                 
          erroneous notices of deficiency.  However, Messrs. Izen and Jones           
          disregard the fact that every court considering the matter has              
          rejected the contention that the search of Mr. Kersting's office            
          was illegal.  See Kersting v. United States, 865 F. Supp. at 674-           
          675.  In addition, the Court held in Dixon I that petitioners               



Page:  Previous  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011