Mitchell Et Ux. v. United States

It is familiar technique for an appellant to seize upon every peccadillo committed by the lower court and magnify it until it becomes a blunder of major proportions.

The present case is no exception.

Although nine errors have been specified in this appeal, only three need be discussed.

The most serious objection is that the trial judge did not allow appellants’ counsel to cross-examine one of “the prosecution’s key witnesses”.

The appellee replies that, on the contrary, there was full cross-examination by the defense. It is pointed out that the witness in question was friendly to the appellants, and that the lower court limited the appellants’ use of leading questions addressed to her.

Properly to evaluate this asserted error, it must be considered in its factual setting.

1. Statement Of The Case.

The indictment was based upon 18 U.S.C.A. § 371 and 26 U.S.C.A. § 145 (b). The appellant Vaughn H. Mitchell was convicted on three counts. Counts 1 and 2 charged him with attempting to defeat and evade a large part of an income tax due by him and his wife, Dorothy Mitchell. Count 5 charged that he and his wife conspired to evade and defeat a part of their income tax. Counts 3 and…