- 5 -
Cravens cases had no material effect on the Court's Dixon II
opinion as it related to Mr. Rina.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
vacated our decisions in the test cases and remanded them for an
evidentiary hearing to determine the full extent of the admitted
misconduct by the Government attorneys in the handling of the
Thompson and Cravens test cases. See DuFresne v. Commissioner,
26 F.3d 105 (9th Cir. 1994).
To effectuate a direction of the Court of Appeals to
consider on the merits all motions of intervention filed by
parties affected by Dixon II, the Court ordered that the cases of
10 nontest case petitioners be consolidated with the remaining
test cases for purposes of the evidentiary hearing. One of the
nontest cases petitioners was represented by Mr. Izen; each of
the remaining nontest case petitioners was represented by either
Mr. Jones or Mr. Sticht.
On March 30, 1999, on the basis of the record developed at
the evidentiary hearing, the Court issued its Supplemental
Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion, Dixon v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-101 (Dixon III), and entered decisions in the
test cases. The Court held that the misconduct of the Government
attorneys in the trial of the test cases did not constitute a
structural defect in the trial but rather resulted in harmless
error. However, with a view to promoting basic fairness and
justice in the Kersting project cases, and to discourage future
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