This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: t the evidence of overpayment was relevant because it showed he relied on his accountants and that he didn't know what statements were true or false. o Evidence Johnson wished to present: If I had looked at the form, and not just relied on my accountant, I would have realized that there were tax deductions I hadn't made and clearly would have changed this and not overpaid. Should the evidence of overpayment be admitted as relevant to the issue of whether Johnson knew that the statements on the tax form were false? Issue: Holding: No! o Rule 402 holding: Wasn't relevant because Johnson lied to his accountants and withheld information,
o therefore Johnson's alleged reliance on his accountants is irrelevant. Rule 403 holding: evidence of neglected deductions is only indirectly probative of reliance on accountants, and in this case it carried several risks against which 403 was designed to protect: Prejudicing the jury by appealing to emotions. Confusing the issues tax liability irrelevant to the offenses for which he was tried. Waste of time on collateral issues. Notes: Government was worried that the jury would be...
View Full Document