From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Mundt

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Dec 7, 1981
666 F.2d 1029 (6th Cir. 1981)

Opinion

No. 80-1719.

December 7, 1981.

Richard Durant, Durant Durant, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant.

James K. Robinson, U.S. Atty., Samuel C. Damren, Asst. U.S. Atty., David L. Maurer, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Before LIVELY, MERRITT and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

The defendant Mundt appeals from his jury conviction on three counts of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7203, willful failure to file a federal income tax return. Though he had filed returns as required by law in previous years, the defendant filed "protest" tax returns for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974. These returns disclosed none of the information with respect to defendant's income for the years required by law, but contained notations and attachments which claimed that his constitutional rights would be violated if he were required to disclose the information called for by the applicable laws.

Upon consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel together with the record on appeal this court concludes that no errors prejudicial to the rights of the defendant occurred during the district court proceedings. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Evanko, 604 F.2d 21 (6th Cir. 1979).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Mundt

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Dec 7, 1981
666 F.2d 1029 (6th Cir. 1981)
Case details for

United States v. Mundt

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SCHUBERT E. MUNDT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Dec 7, 1981

Citations

666 F.2d 1029 (6th Cir. 1981)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Wunder

We have consistently held that when a 1040 is filed in this manner it does not constitute the filing of a…

United States v. Heise

In the present case, Heise asserted the privilege in response to each specific question; however, he did so…