United States v. Jessica Soderling
710 F. App'x 742
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jay and Jessica Soderling were convicted of conspiring to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Jay was also convicted of tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201).
- Issues at trial involved timing of overt/affirmative acts relative to the statute of limitations and whether sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
- Evidence included Mrs. Soderling opening a second personal bank account and using corporate funds for Jay’s personal purchases after a corporate levy—conduct the government argued showed coordinated efforts to hide taxable income.
- Defense raised alleged jury-instruction errors (no requirement to find an overt/affirmative act within the limitations period) and prosecutorial misstatements at closing, plus ineffective assistance claims.
- The district court did not receive a specific, timely objection to the jury instructions; ineffective-assistance claims were not developed on the record.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions, rejecting plain-error challenges and finding the evidence sufficient to support conspiracy and tax-evasion convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions/statute of limitations | Soderlings: instructions failed to require finding an overt/affirmative act within limitations period | Government: no specific objection below; no plain error | No plain error — counsel did not properly object; appellate review limited (Musacchio, Kessi) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy | Government: conduct (account opening, transfers) shows agreement to evade taxes | Soderlings: Mrs. Soderling lacked knowledge; no direct proof of agreement | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence permitted inference of conspiratorial agreement (Krasovich; Ingram) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for tax evasion (Jay) | Government: numerous personal purchases with corporate funds during limitations period show evasion and deceit | Jay: transactions insufficient to show deceit/intent to evade taxes | Affirmed — evidence of personal expenditures and dishonest means supported conviction (Hammerschmidt; Caldwell) |
| Prosecutorial misconduct at closing | Soderlings: prosecutor misstated marital timing to imply Mrs. Soderling knew of liabilities | Government: misstatement was isolated; overall record showed close personal/professional ties | No plain error — single misstatement didn’t affect substantial rights given trial context (Henderson; Flores) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kessi, 868 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1989) (requiring specific, timely objection to preserve instructional error)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (appellate courts cannot correct unpreserved errors as plain error when no error was preserved)
- United States v. Krasovich, 819 F.2d 253 (9th Cir. 1987) (conspiratorial agreement may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672 (1959) (transactions explainable only as intent to evade taxation support inference of wrongful purpose)
- Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924) (tax-evasion conviction requires proof of deceit, craft, or trickery)
- United States v. Caldwell, 989 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir. 1993) (conspiracy conviction requires dishonest means but goal or means need not be independently illegal)
- United States v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2000) (prosecutorial misconduct assessed by impact on jury’s ability to judge evidence fairly)
- United States v. Flores, 802 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2015) (contextual assessment of prosecutorial statements at trial)
- United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (insufficient record precludes resolving ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)