United States v. Beckham, No. 18-1406 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 72121(a). After defendant's trial, the Supreme Court decided Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018), which held that, for a section 7212(a) offense, the government must show that there is a nexus between the defendant's conduct and a particular administrative proceeding. The government conceded that, post Marinello, the jury instruction in defendant's trial was erroneous. Nonetheless, the court held that the error was harmless because the evidence supporting the jury's verdict was so overwhelming that no rational jury could find otherwise.
The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a civil audit; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for mistrial.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Gruender and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - conviction. On appeal from conviction for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue law in violation of 26 U.S.C. sec. 72121(a), the jury instruction which failed to list the element of a nexus between the defendant's conduct and the administrative proceeding and defendant's knowledge, required after the Supreme Court's decision in Marinello v. United States, was nonetheless harmless error based on the indisputable evidence that Beckham provided the IRS with a falsified day planner and overwhelming evidence that Beckham knew of the pending audit when he gave the agent the day planner; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony, as the testimony concerned counts to which Beckham was acquitted; the district court did not err in denying motion to suppress evidence obtained during the civil audit after the criminal investigation was initiated because the IRS did not have firm indication of Beckham's fraud until after evidence was collected; and district court did not err in denying motion for mistrial based on statements made, when Beckham refused the district court's offer of a curative instruction and statement was irrelevant to convicted count.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.