Terry I. and Louise Major - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          of the information in advance of trial, and petitioners had                 
          sufficient time to contact any witnesses named in respondent’s              
          trial memorandum and payors listed in the notices of deficiency.            
          A deposition or other types of discovery were not the only                  
          opportunities available to petitioners to challenge respondent’s            
          records, for petitioners had the opportunity to call those                  
          witnesses or parties to testify at trial.                                   
               Petitioners also argue that certain records comprised of the           
          Dollarhide checks and the declaration of Marlene Mills should be            
          excluded because respondent failed to meet the provisions of the            
          Court’s Standing Pretrial Order, dated May 14, 2004, requiring              
          the exchange of documents 14 days prior to the trial session.               
          The Court admitted these documents at trial for the purpose of              
          impeachment.  In this case, respondent sought to impeach the                
          direct testimony of Terry.  With respect to impeachment of a                
          witness, Fed. R. Evid. 607 provides that “The credibility of a              
          witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling           
          the witness.”  Further, the Court’s Standing Pretrial Order does            
          not mandate exclusion of any exhibit not exchanged at least 14              
          days before the calendar call.  It provides only:  “The Court may           
          refuse to receive in evidence any documentation or material not *           
          * * exchanged, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or allowed            
          by the Court for good cause shown.”  The Court is satisfied that            
          the Dollarhide checks were admissible.                                      

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011