Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al. - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          respondent’s determinations against the other test case                     
               On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,                 
          citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309 (1991), stated:             
                    We cannot determine from this record whether the                  
               extent of misconduct rises to the level of a structural                
               defect voiding the judgment as fundamentally unfair, or                
               whether, despite the government’s misconduct, the                      
               judgment can be upheld as harmless error.  [DuFresne v.                
               Commissioner, 26 F.3d 105, 107 (9th Cir. 1994) (per                    
               curiam), vacating Dixon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                    
          The Court of Appeals vacated the Court’s decisions in the test              
          cases (other than the Thompson and Cravens cases) and remanded              
          them for “an evidentiary hearing to determine the full extent of            
          the admitted wrong done by the government trial lawyers.”  Id.              
          In response to the direction of the Court of Appeals to consider            
          on the merits all motions of intervention filed by interested               
          parties, this Court ordered that the cases of 10 nontest case               
          petitioners (hereafter, the participating nontest case                      
          petitioners) be consolidated with the remaining test cases for              
          purposes of the evidentiary hearing.  One of the participating              
          nontest case petitioners was represented by Joe Alfred Izen, Jr.            
          (Izen), who had represented the test case petitioners (other than           
          the Thompsons and Cravenses) at the original trial; the others              
          were represented by either Robert Alan Jones (Jones) or Robert              
          Patrick Sticht (Sticht).                                                    
          On the basis of the record developed at the evidentiary                     
          hearing, the Court held that the misconduct of the Government               

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