United States v. MacDonald Julius Jackson

Jackson appeals his convictions in connection with a scheme to receive fraudulent tax refunds. He argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting and excluding certain evidence. We affirm.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Jackson was convicted of one count of conspiracy, ten counts of making fraudulent claims, and ten counts of mail fraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 , 1341 (1982 & Supp. IY 1986).

Jackson, along with codefendant John Speidel, devised a scheme to submit to the IRS 101 tax returns on behalf of fictitious taxpayers in order to receive refunds. Speidel pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government. He testified that he and Jackson agreed that Speidel would prepare false returns and W-2 forms. These fictitious taxpayers’ addresses would be listed at a commercial post office box. Speidel testified that Jackson agreed to rent the post office box, collect the tax refund checks, and cash them. Speidel also testified that Jackson called him and furnished a post office box number.

Henderson, an acquaintance of both men and an unindicted coconspirator cooperating with the government, testified that he and Jackson rented the post office box. He…

dissenting:

Appellant Jackson raises three issues in this appeal. The majority, in abbreviated fashion, dismisses each in turn. I find its perfunctory treatment of Jackson’s claims especially troubling because of the importance of some of the questions presented.

The rules surrounding testimony by the defendant permit the introduction of character and prior conduct evidence, evidence unrelated to the enumerated charges. This practice carries with it the risk that jurors may convict a defendant not for the offense he is charged with but because of a general belief that he is a “bad actor.” For example, nothing is so damaging to a defendant’s chances for acquittal as the introduction of evidence that he has previously been convicted of a felony. Given these realities, we have an affirmative obligation to scrutinize carefully the introduction of evidence not directly relevant to the crime charged. Because I believe that at least two of appellant’s objections to the use of such evidence are correct, I dissent.

1. At trial, the prosecution introduced evidence from a fourteen year old bar disciplinary hearing. I agree with the majority that there is no specific time limitation on…

882 F.2d 1444 28 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 905 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MacDonald Julius JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 87-5010. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 2, 1989. Decided Aug. 16, 1989. Mary F. Gibbons, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Michael W. Emmick, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Complaints, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before SNEED, REINHARDT and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. SNEED, Circuit Judge: 1 Jackson appeals his convictions in connection with a scheme to receive fraudulent tax refunds. He argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting and excluding certain evidence. We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW 2 Jackson was convicted of one count of conspiracy, ten counts of making fraudulent claims, and ten counts of mail fraud. See 18 U.S.C. Secs. 287 , 1341 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986). 3 Jackson, along with codefendant John Speidel, devised a scheme to submit to the IRS 101 tax returns on behalf of fictitious taxpayers in order to receive refunds. Speidel pleaded guilty and…