Filed: Jul. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 97-3072 September Term, 1997 United States of America, Appellee 96cr00193-01 v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, Appellant Before: Williams, Henderson and Tatel, Circuit Judges. O R D E R It is ORDERED by the Court that the opinion of March 20, 1998 be amended as follows: Page 11, line 9, before "Umans," insert a footnote 5 as follows and renumber the rest of the footnotes. 5. The independent counsel's briefs made no menti
Summary: United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 97-3072 September Term, 1997 United States of America, Appellee 96cr00193-01 v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, Appellant Before: Williams, Henderson and Tatel, Circuit Judges. O R D E R It is ORDERED by the Court that the opinion of March 20, 1998 be amended as follows: Page 11, line 9, before "Umans," insert a footnote 5 as follows and renumber the rest of the footnotes. 5. The independent counsel's briefs made no mentio..
More
United States Court of Appeals
for the district of columbia circuit
No. 97-3072 September Term, 1997
United States of America, Appellee 96cr00193-01
v.
Sun-Diamond Growers of California, Appellant
Before: Williams, Henderson and Tatel, Circuit Judges.
O R D E R
It is ORDERED by the Court that the opinion of March 20, 1998 be amended as follows:
Page 11, line 9, before "Umans," insert a footnote 5 as follows and renumber the rest of
the footnotes.
5. The independent counsel's briefs made no mention of Standefer, but in a petition for
rehearing he notes that the Supreme Court, in affirming the judgment on other grounds,
Standefer v. United States,
447 U.S. 10 (1980), said in a footnote that "the instructions
to the jury on criminal intent" were "correct."
Id. at 14 n. 8. Standefer's briefs in the
Supreme Court and the Third Circuit's unpublished panel opinion, United States v.
Standefer,
1979 WL 4863 (3d Cir. 1979), however, make clear that the defendant's
challenge was to the absence of a quid pro quo requirement, and to the trial court's
refusal to instruct the jury that the defendant's gifts to an I.R.S. agent had not in fact
resulted in the favorable audit sought by the donor.
Id. at *4-8. In any event, the
instructions in Standefer, reprinted in relevant part in the Third Circuit's panel opinion,
id.
at *5, *6, were far narrower than the charge in this case, repeatedly emphasizing the
requirement that the gifts be given for or because of tax audits performed by the donee.
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY:
Deputy Clerk
Filed on July 17, 1998