- 54 -
Mr. Cravens and Mr. McWade had agreed to a settlement of the
Cravens cases. After reaching an agreement with Mr. McWade, Mr.
Cravens did not authorize Chicoine and Hallett to enter an
appearance in his cases.
E. Evidentiary Issues
After undertaking to represent the test case petitioners,
Chicoine and Hallett decided to challenge their deficiency
notices on the ground that the search of Mr. Kersting's office in
January 1981 had been illegal. Chicoine and Hallett thereupon
filed motions for leave to file amendments to the petitions and
lodged the amendments with the Court. The amendments included
arguments that the materials seized by the Internal Revenue
Service during the search of Mr. Kersting's office should be
suppressed at trial of the test cases and that the burden of
proof and burden of going forward with evidence should be shifted
to respondent. On January 14, 1987, the Court granted Chicoine
and Hallett's motions for leave to file amendments to the
petitions and subsequently directed respondent to file answers to
the petitions as amended.
1. The Maui Session
Although the test cases were originally scheduled for trial
at the Maui session, the trial was delayed by the need to use the
Maui session to receive testimony and evidence on the evidentiary
issues raised by Chicoine and Hallett.
Mr. McWade and Henry E. O'Neill (Mr. O'Neill), another trial
attorney assigned to the Honolulu District Counsel Office,
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011