United States v. Ollie H. Miller

Miller appeals from a conviction on nine counts for preparing false income tax returns for his clients and for aiding *1127 in the presentation of false documents to the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (2). We affirm.

Facts

In 1973 appellant, an accountant, was engaged in the business of preparing income tax returns. Miller generally would meet alone with each client and ask for or receive information from the client on expenses which might be the basis for deductions. In due course Miller would dictate certain figures and information to his secretary to be written or typed on the client’s tax return.

The information given by the client to Miller and the information prepared by Miller for use on the return, however, were not always the same. At the trial, each of five of appellant’s former clients testified that the tax return prepared by Miller contained deductions that were false and that at no time had the client furnished false deduction information. Each of these clients also stated that, after receiving an IRS audit letter, he went to Miller who then had certain documents prepared. These documents, which purported to be letters from…

Circuit Judge (dissenting):

Reversal is required in this case because the nondisclosure of Mills’ confession was Brady error, and it was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the reasoning of the majority is not crystalline, I interpret the opinion as deciding that a Brady error occurred, but that the error was not prejudicial. I cannot reconcile the reasoning with Brady itself nor with the authority that constitutional error requires reversal unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The threshold inquiry is whether Mills’ confession was “material either to guilt or to punishment.” (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 .) Evidence is “material” in the Brady sense if it may have been useful to Miller on the guilt phase of his trial had it been timely disclosed. The standard of materiality is plausible materiality, not palpable materiality. (The Brady phrase is “would tend to exculpate.” 373 U.S. at 88 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 .) Suppression of evidence that goes only to the credibility of a witness is material within the meaning of Brady when the credibility of a witness might affect the outcome of a case. (Giglio v. United…

529 F.2d 1125 76-1 USTC P 9228 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ollie H. MILLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 74--3019. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Jan. 26, 1976. Jerald W. Newton (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Leonard Sharenow, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. OPINION Before HUFSTEDLER, CHOY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges. CHOY, Circuit Judge: 1 Miller appeals from a conviction on nine counts for preparing false income tax returns for his clients and for aiding in the presentation of false documents to the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (2). We affirm. Facts 2 In 1973 appellant, an accountant, was engaged in the business of preparing income tax returns. Miller generally would meet alone with each client and ask for or receive information from the client on expenses which might be the basis for deductions. In due course Miller would dictate certain figures and information to his secretary to be written or typed on the client's tax return. 3 The information given by the client to Miller and the information prepared by Miller for use on the return, however, were…