United States v. Wasson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10139
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Wasson was convicted after a bench trial of conspiracy to defraud the United States and aiding in the filing of false tax returns tied to the Aegis trust scheme.
- The Aegis scheme, operated via Midwest Alternative Planning, marketed sham trusts to hide income and reduce tax liability; Wasson helped recruit clients and facilitate trust setup and offshore transfers.
- The case against Wasson developed from indictments starting in 2006, with multiple superseding indictments and the addition of codefendants, culminating in a third superseding indictment in 2007.
- Pretrial delay was extensive and included several ends-of-justice continuances based on the case’s complexity, discovery, and later developments like a co-defendant’s death and a co-defendant’s plea.
- The district court repeatedly found the case complex and excluded time under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), culminating in a March 2, 2009 trial date.
- Wasson challenged the Speedy Trial Act delays; he was later sentenced to 180 months, with the district court applying the 2008 guidelines, and he appealed on multiple grounds including speedy-trial, sufficiency of evidence, and ex post facto challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Speedy Trial Act delays were properly excluded | Wasson contends the district court failed to provide contemporaneous, explicit records for ends-of-justice findings. | Wasson argues the continuances were invalid exclusions and violated §3161(h)(7). | Exclusions valid; record sufficient under §3161(h)(7) with sequence and later explanations supporting ends-of-justice findings. |
| Whether the evidence supports conspiracy and aiding in filing false tax returns | Government asserts sufficient evidence of intent to defraud and willful participation. | Wasson asserts lack of willfulness or conspiracy due to belief in legality of the Aegis trusts. | Evidence sufficient to sustain both conspiracy and aiding the filing of false returns; no unreasonable doubt about guilt. |
| Whether the use of the 2008 sentencing guidelines violates the ex post facto clause | Government contends advisory nature of guidelines forecloses ex post facto concerns. | Wasson maintains retroactive guideline increases violate ex post facto protections. | No ex post facto violation; advisory changes do not retroactively increase punishment in a way prohibited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hills v. United States, 618 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholds automatic exclusion for pretrial motions in speedy-trial calculations)
- Napadow v. United States, 596 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2010) (sequence of events plus later explanation can support ends-of-justice continuances)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (U.S. 2006) (requires express record findings for ends-of-justice continuances; best practice but not sole requirement)
- Toombs v. United States, 574 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2009) (discusses balancing Ends-of-Justice factors and contemporaneous findings)
- Pakala v. United States, 568 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2009) (rejects defense challenges to exclusions where continuances were properly grounded)
- Demaree v. United States, 459 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2006) (affirms treatment of advisory guidelines in ex post facto analysis)
- United States v. Baskin-Bey, 45 F.3d 200 (7th Cir. 1995) (discusses estoppel considerations in speedy-trial continuances)