Menu
Tax Notes logo

NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS REFUSAL TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY, DISMISS INDICTMENT.

MAY 3, 2011

Edwards, David J. v. U.S.

DATED MAY 3, 2011
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID J. EDWARDS Defendant-Applellant.
  • Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Docket
    No. 10-10227
  • Judge
    Per curiam
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2012-3258
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2012 TNT 33-14

Edwards, David J. v. U.S.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 

 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 

 

MAY 03 2011

 

 

D.C. No. 1:06-cr-00049-LJO-1

 

 

MEMORANDUM*

 

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

 

for the Eastern District of California

 

Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding

 

 

Argued and Submitted April 15, 2011

 

San Francisco, California

 

 

Before: NOONAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, Senior District Judge.**

David J. Edwards ("Edwards") appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress grand jury testimony and dismiss the indictment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Assuming, without deciding, that the district court erred in denying Edwards's motion to suppress Ledbetter's grand jury testimony, we conclude that the error was harmless. "[A]s a general matter, a district court may not dismiss an indictment for errors in grand jury proceedings unless such errors prejudiced the defendants." Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254 (1988). Since the testimony and documentary evidence that Special Agent Brian Applegate presented to the grand jury were clearly sufficient to support the indictment, the admission of Ledbetter's testimony did not '"substantially [influence] the grand jury's decision to indict'" and the district court properly declined to dismiss the indictment. See id. at 256 (quoting United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 78 (1986) (O'Connor, J., concurring)).

AFFIRMED.

Judge N.R. Smith concurring,

The district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment or suppress Ledbetter's testimony, because there was no violation of the tax practitioner privilege. Congress specified that the privilege "may only be asserted in -- (A) any noncriminal tax matter before the Internal Revenue Service; and (B) any noncriminal -- tax proceeding in Federal court brought by or against the United States." 26 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(2) (emphases added). It is obvious that a grand jury hearing is not a matter before the Internal Revenue Service. Edwards conceded at oral argument that the grand jury hearing was not a tax proceeding in Federal court. The privilege was therefore inapplicable.

There is no reason for the court to extend a common-law privilege in this case. Congress has expressly provided that a tax practitioner-client privilege should only apply to a "noncriminal tax matter before the Internal Revenue Service" or a "noncriminal tax proceeding in Federal court." Id.; Fed. R. Evid. 501 ("[T]he privilege of a witness . . . shall be governed by the principles of the common law," "[e]xcept as otherwise . . . provided by Act of Congress.")

 

FOOTNOTES

 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

 

END OF FOOTNOTES
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID J. EDWARDS Defendant-Applellant.
  • Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Docket
    No. 10-10227
  • Judge
    Per curiam
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2012-3258
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2012 TNT 33-14
Copy RID