Filed: Jun. 11, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-11-2003 USA v. Ringwalt Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-3142 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "USA v. Ringwalt" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 464. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/464 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United St
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-11-2003 USA v. Ringwalt Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-3142 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "USA v. Ringwalt" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 464. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/464 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Sta..
More
Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-11-2003
USA v. Ringwalt
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-3142
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Ringwalt" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 464.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/464
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 02-3142
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CHARLES H. RINGWALT, III,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
(D.C. Civil No. 01-cr-00192)
Argued on June 2, 2003
Before: BARRY, FUENTES, and ROSENN Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 10, 2003)
Richard G. Tuttle [Argued]
Kolansky, Tuttle & Rocco
1429 Walnut Street
Suite 1300
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Counsel for Appellant
John J. Pease, III [Argued]
Office of the United States Attorney
615 Chestnut Street
Suite 1250
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Counsel for Appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
On January 17, 2002, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania convicted Charles H. Ringwalt, III (“Ringwalt”) of two counts of
income tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, three counts of willfully subscribing
to false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and one count of aiding and
assisting the preparation of false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). On
appeal, Ringwalt claims that: (1) the Government committed prosecutorial misconduct in
its closing argument to the jury; (2) the Government failed to disclose exculpatory
evidence before or during trial; (3) the District Court erred in limiting the testimony of his
expert witness; and (4) there was insufficient evidence of willfulness presented at trial to
sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty.
Ringwalt raised all of these claims before the District Court in his motions for
judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. The District Court conducted an exhaustive
2
analysis of each claim in a lengthy, written opinion and denied each of Ringwalt’s motions.
See United States v. Ringwalt,
213 F. Supp. 2d 499 (E.D. Pa. 2002). After a careful review
of the record and the Parties’ arguments, we find no basis for disturbing the District
Court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. Thus, we will affirm the judgment for
substantially the same reasons set forth in Judge Robreno’s opinion.
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge
3