United States v. John Heard, Jr.
709 F.3d 413
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Heard and Lambert operated multiple security-related corporations and were charged with a conspiracy to defraud the United States by failing to pay employment taxes and related offenses.
- The conspiracy allegedly spanned ~18 years, involving name changes and corporate reorganizations to evade IRS detection.
- Lambert, a CPA, handled payroll for several entities and served as SPI’s CFO around 1999–2000.
- Evidence showed Heard diverted funds to his personal use and did not remit payroll taxes, with substantial tax losses alleged.
- Heard was also convicted of bribery, illegal gratuity, and related offenses; Lambert faced conspiracy and related counts; both were sentenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of quid pro quo for bribery conviction | Heard argues no quid pro quo. | Government proved exchange of value for official act. | Sufficient evidence supported quid pro quo finding. |
| Admissibility of Lane’s lay opinion on motivation | Heard challenges lay opinion as improper lay testimony. | Lane’s testimony was rationally based and helpful to the jury. | Court did not abuse discretion; lay opinion admitted. |
| § 2T1.1(b)(1) enhancement validity | Argues double counting; funds not illicitly obtained. | Funds were illegally derived from withholding payroll taxes. | Enhancement proper; funds illegally derived beyond mere nonreporting. |
| Lambert withdrawal and statute of limitations | Lambert withdrew before 2002; statute of limitations issue. | Withdrawal evidence insufficiently clear; substantial evidence supports denial. | District court did not err in denying acquittal on withdrawal. |
| Admissibility of bankruptcy fraud evidence (Rule 404(b)) | Bankruptcy evidence inadmissible as 404(b) act. | Evidence intrinsic to conspiracy or admissible as 404(b) with notice. | Evidence admissible; notice adequate; not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sun-Diamond Growers of California v. packed, 526 U.S. 398 (1999) (limits on interpretive scope of certain tax-related evidence)
- United States v. Vasquez, 677 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing acquittals and evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (Beecuhm Beechum test for Rule 404(b) admissibility)