Case Brief U.S. v. Mcree 7 F. 3D 976 11th Cir 1993

United States of America, Plaintiff -- Appellee, Ann W. McRee, Joseph H. Hale, Defendants -- Appellee. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Parties: United States of America (Plaintiff) v. McRee & Hale (Defendants) Facts: On February 28, 1985 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a jeopardy assessment in the amount of $1.9 million which would impact Hale's property and businesses. He was in prison at the time for securities fraud and perjury, and his affairs were being handled by Ann McRee and Paul Wagner.

On April 15, 1985, the IRS sent Hale a Denial of Appeal of Jeopardy Assessment with right to appeal, which they did not take advantage of. The IRS accidentally sent Hale a refund check in the amount of $359,380.25 because of a computer error which should have stated that they took $340,000 as partial payment of the amount owed. Hale did everything in his power to convert that money to cash so it could not be reclaimed by the government, including putting the money in his wife's name and then McRee's.

In September 1985 when the IRS discovered the error they demanded the money be repaid which Hale refused to do. Prior Proceedings: On August 19, 1987 Hale and McRee were indicted on seven counts of conspiracy to convert U.S. property. On July 27, 1990 both defendants were found guilty on all counts. The defendants moved for an acquittal and a retrial arguing that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the refund check was U.S. property or that Hale and McRee had the specific intent to defraud the government.

They also called for a new trial on the grounds that the district court excluded questions which would have seen if fear of reprisal from the IRS would lead a juror to vote a certain way. Both motions were denied.

Issues Presented or Questions of Law: In their appeal, Hale and McRee state that their convictions ought to have been acquitted based on: lack of evidence to support convictions, not asking the prospective jurors about fear of the IRS, rejection of the defendants' claims of racial discrimination in jury selection, exclusion of testimony from Hale and McRee's tax expert, and refusing to give an "ignorance of the law" instruction to the jury.

Arguments or Objectives of the Parties: Government Property: Hale and McRee state that the check was not U.S. property because the government did not maintain supervision and control, which are necessary. The IRS stated that the supervision and control provision did not apply in the case and that it is government property because the U.S.

has a decided interest in wrongly issued checks Specific Intent: Hale and McRee argue that Hale cashed the check on good faith because his attorney told him it was okay to do so, in addition they felt that the government had already.