-16-
with his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and that
neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit accepted those assertions. See Hickey v. United States,
supra.
We believe that the courts’ decisions in Hickey v. United
States, supra, preclude petitioners from repeating in this
proceeding the same assertions that petitioner made in support of
his petition for writ of error coram nobis. That petition
contended that Cox improperly collaborated with Voorhees before
petitioner’s case was submitted for criminal referral and that
Cox and Voorhees developed a criminal case against petitioner in
the guise of a civil examination even after Cox had uncovered in
the civil investigation firm evidence of fraud. Id. The
District Court rejected those contentions and denied the
petition.5 The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
that action, stating: “the District Court correctly concluded
that the evidence of record does not support * * * [petitioner’s]
contention that IRS agents developed its criminal case against
him in the guise of a civil investigation even after the civil
investigation had uncovered firm evidence of fraud.” Id. at 319.
“[W]hen an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a
5 The District Court may also have rejected the same
assertions when it denied petitioner’s motion to suppress. The
record is not clear as to whether the court denied that motion on
its merits or because it was moot.
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