United States v. Jay Sarno

The issue on this appeal is whether defendant Jay Sarno (“Sarno”), who was acquitted of bribing agents of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) by the trial judge following the jury’s inability to reach a verdict, is entitled, on the basis of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel, to the dismissal by the same trial judge of a subsequent perjury indictment which alleged that the defendant had testified falsely at the prior trial.

I. FACTS

Sarno was initially indicted along with Stanley Mallín (“Mallín”) and Leo Crutch-field (“Crutchfield”) on charges of bribing a public official ( 18 U.S.C. § 201 (b)(1)), conspiracy ( 18 U.S.C. § 371 ), and interference with the administration of the internal revenue laws ( 26 U.S.C. § 7212 (a)). In the course of the trial, uncontested evidence was presented that Crutchfield, who had been under an IRS audit, had first suggest ed to an IRS agent that Sarno and Mallin, who were involved with a Las Vegas casino, might be interested in unlawful assistance with their pending tax audits. When Sarno and Mallin failed to initiate any discussions with IRS officials as to fixing their audits, IRS Agent Smith was sent to Crutchfield’s business address.…