United States v. Donald Turner, 718 F.3d 226

Turner conspired with Leveto and others through FAR and the colato program to defraud the IRS by concealing assets and income.
Turner authored Tax Free! and marketed FAR, which recruited members to support the colato scheme.
Leveto provided book sales, recruited members, and controlled clinic income, enabling tax avoidance under the program.
An undercover IRS agent purchased Tax Free! from Leveto; multiple conversations were recorded and admitted at trial.
IRS seized Leveto’s home/office documents, including foreign and domestic bank records, later admitted at trial.
Turner was convicted of conspiracy, sentenced to 60 months, three years of supervised release, and $408,043 restitution; he appeals challenging admission of evidence and restitution ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Leveto–Gonzalez talks	Turner contends no conspiracy existed to recruit FAR members.	Gonzales statements were made in furtherance of a conspiracy to impair IRS collection.	Conspiracy existed; recordings properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
Authentication and trustworthiness of foreign bank documents	Documents were not properly authenticated and lack trustworthiness for Rule 807.	Documents were authentic and sufficiently trustworthy under Rule 807.	Documents authenticated; admissible under Rule 901 and Rule 807.
MVRA applicability to restitution	MVRA applies after appeal as a legal question; restitution should reflect no consideration of ability to pay.	MVRA applies to offenses against property and mandates full restitution regardless of defendant's ability to pay.	MVRA applies to this §371 conspiracy; full restitution ordered.

Ellis, 156 F.3d 493 (3d Cir. 1998) (proof elements for Rule 801(d)(2)(E) conspiracy statements; reliance on independent corroboration)
Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1987) (conspiracy-foundation and use of coconspirator statements)
Gambino, 926 F.2d 1355 (3d Cir. 1991) (co-conspirator statements admissibility and corroboration)
McGlory, 968 F.2d 309 (3d Cir. 1992) (administrative authentication standards for evidence)
Goichman, 547 F.2d 778 (3d Cir. 1976) (small prerequisite for authentication and reliance on circumstantial evidence)
Wilson, 249 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2001) (bank records admissibility under residual hearsay)
Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110 (1st Cir. 1989) (bank records admissibility under residual hearsay)
Karme, 673 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1982) (bank records admissibility and reliability considerations)
Diaz, 245 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2001) (MVRA applies to offenses against property including money losses)
Meredith, 685 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2012) (MVRA applicability to conspiracy-to-defraud IRS context)
Bohler-Uddeholm America, Inc. v. Ellwood Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2001) (limitations of Rule 807 and declarant identity considerations)
Wright, 363 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2004) (trustworthiness requirements for residual hearsay under Rule 807)
Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193 (3d Cir. 1992) (bank records and guarantees of trustworthiness)