April 26, 2001: I have never read this transcript; there was no need. But today, I was provided with the below and decided to post this transcript of the Lloyd Long trial in federal court in Chattanooga. This transcript has 7 parts, this page being Part 1.
The others are:   Part 2    Part 3    Part 4     Part 5    Part 6      Part 7.

This "transcript" was a copy made several generations from the original, thus there were some errors. I have attempted to clean a few from memory.

You may contact Lloyd and get better copies:

Lloyd Long
5080 Roarks Cove Road
Decherd, TN  37324
(931) 967-1402

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LLOYD R. LONG,

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------
NO. CR-1-93-91
Chattanooga, Tennessee October 12, 1993

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE R. ALLAN EDGAR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JURY TRIAL

DAY ONE

VOLUME I

PAGES 1 thru 222

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Curtis Collier, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorney
Second Floor, Warehouse Row
Chattanooga, TN 37402

FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., Esq
Attorney at Law
209 Lincoln Street
Huntsville, AL 35801

Russell Leonard, Esq.
Attorney at Law
124 First Avenue, N.W.
Winchester, TN 37398

E X H I B I T S (Government)
1 1989 Records from Maury County
2 Long's 1989 Form 1099 from Maury County
3 1990 Records from Maury County
4 Long's 1990 Form 1099 from Maury County
Sl Summary
S2 Summary
5 Resume
6 1989 Interest Income Form
7 1990 Interest Income Form
S3 Summary
S4 Summary
8 Payroll Check from Grover's Chemical
9 1099 From Grower's Chemical
S5 Summary
10 Form 1040 for 1988
11 Form 1040 for 1987
12 Form 1040 for 1986
S10 (A-G) Summaries
13 Certificate of Lack of Record for 1989
14 Certificate of Lack of Record for 1990
S6 Summary
S7 Summary
S8 Summary
S9 Summary
E X H I B I T S (Defendant)
Master File
Congressional Research Service Report
2 Congressional Research Service Report
3 Instruction Booklet for 1988

BE IT REMEMBERED, the above-entitled cause came on for hearing this 12th day of October, 1993, before the Honorable R. Allan Edgar, when the following testimony and evidence was introduced, to-wit;

THE COURT: Call the case.

THE CLERK: Criminal Action 1-93-91, United States of America versus Lloyd R. Long.

THE COURT: All right. I understand there's something that you wanted to take up at this time prior to selecting the jury?

MR. COLLIER: That's correct, Your Honor. There are three matters. The first one concerns the bill of information. The government submitted jury instructions to the Court about three weeks ago. And we would like to ask the Court to amend Count 1 of the bill of information to comport with what's in the jury instruction. That is, the date that the return should've been filed. April 15th of that year was on a Sunday, and the next Monday was the 16th. date there becomes April 16th instead of April 15th.

MR. BECRAFT: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. Count 1 of the superseding bill of information will be amended then to 16th. All right.

MR. COLLIER: The second thing, Your Honor, concerns discovery in this case. As the Court knows, it's the practice in this district for a discovery order be handed down early on in the case. We provided discovery to defense early on. We provided an opportunity for Mr. Long and his counsel to go over and review almost everything we had in our files, and then provide us with reciprocal discovery. And in fact, they did. They gave us a bundle of materials. This morning in court, I was just handed by Mr. Becraft a defendant's exhibit list with a lot of materials that I have never seen before. It was just presented to me this morning. I've had and I will have no opportunity to check it out to determine whether it's true. Some of it appears to be coming from third parties, and it's dated after the offenses in this case. So, I think that we would have to object to any late discovery that's being provided to us. And I think that's going to consist of most of the items on their exhibit list.

THE COURT: Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Becraft?

MR. BECRAFT: Yes. I have here my proposed exhibit list, and there are a total of 17 exhibits that we propose to offer into evidence. Now, I will tell the Court that starting with Exhibit No. 9 through 16, all of those are exhibits that the government has had from day one. It was in their discovery. And I called Mr. Collier yesterday and asked him, you know, should I, for our letters that we're going to introduce into evidence, are you going to offer them or should I offer them. So, those exhibits right there that I've just called out are documents that the prosecution has had from the very beginning. It's been provided to us through their discovery. Of course, our copies might be a little cleaner because we made copies from the originals, and they might have several generations of copies. But then that leaves the real question that will relate to Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8 on this proposed list.

MR. COLLIER: Seventeen.

MR. BECRAFT: And 17. Well, I'll tell you about 17 in a minute. They haven't provided anything in that respect. And they're going to bring in a witness from the service center and they're going to be offering documents that I've never seen either, If they want to object in that respect, I'm going to object to the stuff that they're going to bring in from the service center. But nonetheless, in relationship to items one through eight, most of this stuff is just government material.

THE COURT: Let's take a look at one. 1979 CRS report. What is that?

MR. BECRAFT: I have it right here. It consists of a total of four pages out of a government report. Now, I'll tell the Court what's happened. Mr. Leonard, in providing discovery, offered to the government certain reliance material consisting of books and things of that nature, without knowing specifically what we were going to be offering into evidence. Now, this last week when I was working with Mr. Long about what documents we should introduce into evidence -- he's got a quantity of material. I mean, we didn't bring it up. He's got boxes of items, Your Honor. And all I did is I discounted the stuff, the big books that Mr. Leonard brought up that, you know, that simply don't need to be in evidence, that the government would probably have an objection to it. So, all I've done is taken certain selected documents that are important. And most of it is government material.

THE COURT: You haven't answered my question. What's the 1979 CRS report?

MR. BECRAFT: I'll show the Court here. And I haven't had the opportunity, I was going to, during a break, put exhibit stickers on them. But I've got everything divided up into files.

THE COURT: Who is Howard Zoretski?

MR. BECRAFT: Just somebody with the Congressional Research Service, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It says he's a legislative attorney with the American law division. Of what?

THE COURT: Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress, Your Honor...

MR. BECRAFT: Is that what it is? The Library of Congress? It doesn't say that.

MR. BECRAFT: Yes. CSR, to my understanding, it's a branch of the Library of Congress. They answer questions for Congress. That's a report. You know, let's look down to something like number seven, 1979 annual report. It's a single, one page document. It's a government publication. You know, all we've got here, with the exception of this 1990 -- I mean this Exhibit No. 4, the AM-Tax guide, everything else is government documents.

THE COURT: What's 1988 PA notice?

MR. BECRAFT: That's out of the instruction. booklet, Your Honor, 1040 instruction booklet. This is part of the case.

THE COURT: I'll tell you what, why don't you hand up Exhibits 1 through 8 and Exhibit 17 and let me take a look at them. Mr. Collier, while he's doing that, you-all have had 9 through 16? Is that right?

MR. COLLIER: The letters, Your Honor, we have no problems at all with. And the problem with these other things is not so much even whether they're accurate or not, it's that we have not had the chance to even look at them and determine. Mr. Becraft may be right. This may be out of some government entity. I have no way of knowing that. All I know is somebody gave me this over the weekend.

THE COURT: I understand that. But my question is, first of all, 9 through 16, you don't have any problems with those, right?

MR. COLLIER: That's right, Your Honor, 9 through 16 we don't have any problem at all.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COLLIER: They gave that to us early on.

THE COURT: So, we're dealing really about 1 through 8 and 17. Now, hand those up, if you would, Mr. Becraft.

MR. BECRAFT: Well, Your Honor, I've got them all in order here.

THE COURT: Well, give them all up to me. Let me take a look at them.

MR. BECRAFT: I'll do so, Your Honor. Now, on Exhibit No. 2, Your Honor, I think I left it down at my office, but it's a whole lot like Exhibit No. l. I'll tell the Court, I've got one coming. It's coming Federal Express to your chambers.

THE COURT: Okay. Number 3 appears to be the instructions from 1040.

MR. BECRAFT: I have the whole instruction booklet there, but I've just made copies of the relevant part.

THE COURT: Exhibit 4 appears to be some literature published by maybe one of your organizations?

MR. BECRAFT: That's correct.

THE COURT: Exhibit 5, Avis statement. What's that?

MR. BECRAFT: There's, you know, hearings before Congress, they come out with these big thick books, Your Honor. There's a thing called the serial set which accompanies the Congressional Record. And I don't know whether that thing comes out of something in the serial set. But it's a 1953 government hearing.

THE COURT: Looks like it's some kind of report of a congressional hearing.

MR. BECRAFT: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. Exhibit 6 is an IRS bulletin. Seven is a 1979 annual report, Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Eight is a letter from the IRS to somebody named Dickerson.

MR. COLLIER: Notice the date of that letter, Your Honor. It's in the top right-hand corner.

THE COURT: March 14, 1991.

MR. BECRAFT: Which is before April 15th of 1991, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Why weren't these matters produced earlier, Mr. Becraft?

MR. BECRAFT: Well, Your Honor, Mr. Leonard, he's never tried one of these cases and --

THE COURT: Yeah, but he can read, though. He can read, can't he?

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Leonard, why didn't you produce these earlier?

MR. LEONARD: Well, Your Honor, that was a failure on my part through inadequate communications with my client. That's one reason that apparently Mr. Long saw fit to bring Mr. Becraft in.

THE COURT: Well, the order says that you're supposed to submit discovery -- let's take a look and see what it says.

MR. LEONARD: In the confusion of dealing with criminal prosecution, Mr. Long just was incapable of remembering everything that he had dealt with, seen, touched, smelled, had related to him, concerning these matters. He's been under considerable emotional strain. His family has been under considerable emotional strain. And it's, to be quite candid, it's taken someone with Mr. Becraft's experience to be able to pull Mr. Long into a position where he was ready to, actually ready for trial. Again, this was due to my lack of capability to get Mr. Long ready. I had informed Mr. Collier that at some juncture, due to the nature of the case and the fact Mr. Long was having difficulty pulling it together, that, in fact, we might make some other relevant material available to, try to make it available as soon as possible. At this juncture, Mr. Becraft has taken lead seat; and he has been able to help Mr. Long reconstruct his past.

THE COURT: Well, the discovery order says, page 2, that upon receipt of the government's discovery you're supposed to permit the government to inspect and copy things that you're going to offer as exhibits.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, as Mr. Collier has stated, we did, in fact, do that insofar as we presented what at the time we knew we had available. Again, the point is that Mr. Long took some period of time to reach the decision he made that's brought him before this court, and a great deal of material has passed over his desk. And it's just taken some period of time and some getting Mr. Long prepared for trial to be able to pull all that relevant material in.

THE COURT: What's this --

MR. LEONARD: It may be due to my inadequacy, and I apologize to the Court.

THE COURT: What's this master file?

MR. BECRAFT: It's something that comes out of the service center, Your Honor. It's a computer printout. It may be on the very bottom.

THE COURT: Well, what I'm going to do, Mr. Collier, is to -- I have looked at these things briefly. They do not require considerable amount of review. Basically what they are is materials that I'm sure the defendant claims he relied upon in making his decision not to file tax returns, if he did indeed make that decision. And so I'm going to go ahead and allow them in at this time. But I will allow you, Mr. Collier, any amount of time that you want to review those documents. I don't think we're going to be getting to them until tomorrow anyway. But if you want another day or two to review those, I'll let you have that time.

MR. COLLIER: I would appreciate that, Your Honor. You will recall that on Friday I had commented that as long as a delay would not be occasioned in this case, I had no objection to Mr. Becraft coming on board.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. COLLIER: I was in the office on Saturday. Mr. Becraft could've called me then. I was in the office yesterday. In fact, Mr. Becraft did call me and talk to me yesterday. He never ever said anything about additional material being discovered. It is specifically set out in the rules.

THE COURT: I know. It's in the order. They should've been produced. But we find ourselves in this predicament at this time, and we just have to make the best disposition of it we can. That's what I've done. Okay. Anything else?

MR. COLLIER: One last thing, Your Honor. Virginia Sherard's going to be our expert.

MR. BECRAFT: No objection, Your Honor.

MR. COLLIER: And we'd like her to sit in.

THE COURT: Okay. No objection. All right. Are we ready to proceed then?

MR. BECRAFT: Defense is, Your Honor.

MR. COLLIER: We're ready, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Call the jury in. (Whereupon, jury panel entered courtroom.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury panel, the clerk has previously called the case this morning. It's United States of America versus Lloyd R. Long. At this time I will ask all members of the jury panel, if you would, please, stand and raise your right hands. (Jury panel was sworn.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, when your name is called, if you would, please, come up and sit up here in the jury box and in these chairs that are off to the side here of the jury box. The first person whose name is called, please sit on the first row, on my end of the courtroom. Fill in the first row toward the back first, and then fill in the second row. Mr. Fisher here will help guide you to your seat. And then fill in the first row of chairs in the order that your name is called, and then the second and then the third in the same fashion. At this time I'll ask the clerk to call the names and juror numbers of 32 jurors.

THE CLERK: Number 136, Olivia Harvey; number 104, Carter Anderson; 102, George Allen; number 16, Darlene Carson; 75, Nancy Williams; 163, Johnny Olson; number 10, Michael Boling; 169, Sara Richardson; number 161, Kenneth Morrow; 171, Deborah Runyan; number 149, Elmer Layne; number 138, Daniel Hicks; number 4, Charlene Beard; number 182, Darrius Wilcox; number 44, W. A. Kilgore; 170, Grace Roark; 126, Raynard Foster; number 116, Elizabeth Clark; number 71, Brenda Tripp; number 180 Leslie Werner; 139, Donald Jamison; number 30, Judy Goodbrad; number 11, Richard Brady; 135, Sadie Hannah; 42, Richard Jones; 141, John Karnes; 143, Gertrude Knight; 127, Johnnie Fritts; 103, Robert Allen; 151, Barbara Locke; number 1, ames Caldwell, Jr.; number 140, Kelly Johnson.

THE COURT: All right. Good morning to all of you. I want to just tell you, for those of you who have not been through this process before, and I think most of you have, we'll be asking you some questions here. The purpose of the questions is not to be nosey, but just to allow me and also the attorneys in the case to make an informed decision about whether or not you could be fair and impartial as a juror in this particular case. After we ask you these questions, then the lawyers in the case will have a certain number of what we call preemptory challenges that they can exercise, which will excuse some of you. And then some of you will remain as jurors, and those of you who remain will be the jurors who actually serve in this case. Let me explain to you just a little bit about what this case involves. This is a criminal case. The defendant is Lloyd R. Long. He is charged in a superseding information with willfully failing to file his federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1989 and 1990. The defendant has pleaded not guilty. And I should tell you that the superseding information is not evidence of any kind against the defendant. It's just a mechanical means by which the case is brought to this court for trial here this morning. The defendant in the case, of course, as I will tell you later as well, begins with a clean slate, with no evidence at all against him. All right. Having heard that much about the case, has any member of this panel heard anything about this case prior to coming to court here today? Raise your hand if you have. Okay. Let me introduce to you some of the people who will be involved in the trial here. First, seated at the table closest to you, assistant united States attorney, Curtis Collier. Other than perhaps having seen him here in court, does anybody know Mr. Collier? Okay. Mr. Collier, would you please introduce your agent there?

MR. COLLIER: This is Michael Geasley, with the Internal Revenue Service.

THE COURT: Anybody know -- is it Neasley?

MR. COLLIER: Geasley, G-e-a-s-l-e-y.

THE COURT: Mr. Geasley. Anybody know Mr. Geasley? All right. On the other side of the courtroom, the defendant in the case, Mr. Lloyd Long. Please stand up Mr. Long. Anybody know Mr. Long? Okay. With him are attorney Lowell Becraft. Anybody know Mr. Becraft? Mr. Becraft is an attorney I believe from down in Huntsville, Alabama.

MR. BECRAFT: (Moving head up and down.)

THE COURT: Okay. And Mr. Russell Leonard, also an attorney here representing Mr. Long. Anybody know Mr. Leonard? I think Mr. Leonard practices up on Monteagle Mountain. All of you have received a little list of questions. At this time what we'd like to do is, starting here, if we could, with Ms. Harvey, and if you would, please, just stand and just tell us a little bit about yourself, Ms. Harvey, from the information that's requested there.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm Olivia Harvey. I am a realtor. I am married. My husband is a manager. I have two children. They are 25 and 26 years old. I love sports. I love working with the elderly and I love working with children.

THE COURT: Thank you, very much. Mr. Anderson?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Carter Anderson. I'm an addictions counselor. I work for Cumberland Health Systems. Single. I like to fish and work on old cars.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Allen.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm George Allen. I work for Lanier. I fix copy machines. I'm married. My wife works for the county. I have three sons. They're 20, 18, and 16. And I've got a number of hobbies, but mostly I spend my time woodworking.

THE COURT: Ms. Carson?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm Darlene Carson. I'm a probation officer for the Hamilton County Juvenile Court. I'm divorced. I have two boys, ages 21 and 14. My hobbies are music, reading, and walking.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Williams?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm Nancy Williams. I'm a preschool teacher. My husband is a CPA. I have two daughters, ages 30 and 25. And I enjoy reading and tennis.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Olson.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Johnny Olson. I'm a manager at TVA. I have three children: two boys, ages 18 and 16, and a daughter age seven. I enjoy fishing and hunting, mostly bowling, hunting.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Boling.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Hike Boling. I work at Sam's Club. I'm married. I have a six-month-old boy. And I enjoy watching sports and fishing.

THE COURT: Mrs. Richardson?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Sara Richardson. I'm a homemaker. I am married. My husband is an electrical engineer. I have two children who are ages 19 and 22. And I volunteer as my pastime.

THE COURT: Mr. Morrow?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Ken Morrow. I'm a sales manager with Lowe's Company. Harried. I have three children: 22, 23, and a four-year-old. And my hobbies are fishing and reading.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mrs. Runyan?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Deborah Runyan. I work for TVA. I'm a contracts administrator. I'm married. My husband is in insurance sales. I have a 15-year-old daughter. And right now my hobbies are taken up pretty much with evening classes.

THE COURT: Mr. Layne.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Elmer Layne. I'm retired from TVA. And I'm married. Got two children. One of them is age 40, and 41. Sports and I mess with old model cars.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. Hicks?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Daniel Hicks. Occupation is inspector. Married. My wife is a machinist. I have four children: 39, 37, 35, and 33. And I like fishing and hunting.

THE COURT: Thank you. Now we'll come back down here to the first row. Ms. Beard?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm Charlene Beard. I'm with the Social Security Administration. I'm divorced. I do not have children. I do a lot of volunteer work at the library and teaching adults to read.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilcox?

PROSPECTIVE JUR0R: My name is Darrius Wilcox. I'm an automated press operator. I'm married. My wife's a seamstress. No children. My hobbies are hunting and fishing.

THE COURT: Mr. Kilgore?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is W. A. Kilgore. Occupation is heavy equipment operator. Divorced. I have one child, 27 year old. Hobbies are hunting and fishing.

THE COURT: Mrs. Roark?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Grace Roark. I'm retired. I'm married. My husband is retired from the foundry. We have two children. One is 37 and one is 41. And my hobbies are reading and sewing.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Foster.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Raynard Foster. I'm a loan officer. I'm married. My wife's a teacher. Got three children: eight, ten, and 16. And our time is mostly taken up with their sports activities.

THE COURT: Okay. I understand. Mrs. Clark?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Elizabeth Clark, I'm a part-time secretary at Southeast Therapeautic. Part-time student. I've got an eight-year-old daughter. My husband is a builder, and I like to read.

THE COURT: Mrs. Tripp?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Brenda Tripp. I work at NcKee Foods in production. I'm divorced. I have one daughter that's 15. I like art and camping.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Werner?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Les Werner. Human resources manager. Married. My wife is a purchasing manager. We have one child, age 30. And I enjoy lawn and gardening and reading.

THE COURT: Mr. Jamison?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Donald Jamison. I'm a receiving clerk for Provident. I'm married. My wife works at CADAS. I have two children, grown and gone. I like sports, reading, and pool.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mrs. Goodbrad?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Judy Goodbrad. I'm an interior designer for Life Care of America. I'm married. My husband is self-employed. I have a son that's 23 and a daughter that's 21. And my hobby is crafts.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Brady?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Richard Brady. I work at Bowater. I'm married. I've got child, 16. My hobbies are sports.

THE COURT: Okay. Mrs. Hannah?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm Sadie Hannah. I'm a homemaker and volunteer. My husband is a group research developer at DuPont. Our children are 24 and 18. And I enjoy volunteering and gardening.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Jones?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm Richard Jones. Married. Retired. Three children: 41, 38, 33. My hobby is golf.

THE COURT: Mr. Karnes?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Johnny Karnes. I'm a mechanical designer with Bowater Southern. I'm married. My wife is an elementary school teacher. We have no children. And my activities include my church, bicycling and running.

THE COURT: Okay. Mrs. Knight?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Gertrude Knight. I'm a housewife. My husband is deceased. I have one child, 36 years old. And my hobbies is bowling and reading.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Fritts?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Johnnie Fritts. Retired, U.S. Navy, and presently working as a food service supervisor at East Ridge Hospital. I'm married. My wife works in customer service at Photo Finishing. Two children: 30 and 28. Hobbies are fishing and gardening.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Allen.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Robert Allen. I'm retired from Chattanooga Times. Married. My wife is retired with TVA. Four children: 41, 37, 30, and 25. My hobbies are church and playing golf

THE COURT: Mrs. Locke?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Barbara Locke. I'm a branch assistant at Chattanooga Agriculture Credit Association at the Dayton office. I'm married. I have two children, ages 21 and 26. And I like to swim and shop.

THE COURT: Mr. Caldwell?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm Jim Caldwell. And I'm in the risk management and insurance business. I'm very happily married, to a realtor. We have four boys. And our main hobbies are our church and our travel.

THE COURT: Finally, Mrs. Johnson.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm Kelly Johnson. I'm a dental assistant. I'm married. My husband is a carpenter. No children. And hobbies include anything outdoors.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you all for that. That helps us get a brief picture of a little bit about you and who are you, and I think saves in the long run some questions that we don't have to ask now because we know the answers. Just a couple of general questions, and then I'll turn you over and let the lawyers ask you some more detailed questions. You've heard what this case, what the allegations in this case are. Is here anything about those allegations that would prevent any of you. from being fair and impartial to both sides in this case? Raise your hand. And don't hesitate to do so if you have any feelings one way or another about this. Okay. You'll be asked to make your decision in this case based just on the evidence that you hear in the courtroom. Will anybody not be able to do that? Just think in general terms now. Of course, I realize you don't know much about this case. You know just generally what the allegations are and who's involved here. Is there any reason why any member of the jury panel would not be able to be fair and impartial in this case to both sides, to the government and to the defendant? Raise your hand. Okay. Mr. Collier, you may ask. Oh, I should say one thing before you start, Mr. Collier. This case is expected to take two days to try. It's possible that it could be extended to three days or maybe four days, although we wouldn't be in court all that time, My best guess is the case should be able to -- we will definitely complete it this week. My best guess is that we probably should be able to complete it by tomorrow, but there's a possibility that it might be a little longer than that. Does that present any particular scheduling problem for any member of this panel? Yes, sir, Mr. Allen.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm supposed to be a pallbearer at a funeral Thursday morning in Huntsville at ten o'clock.

THE COURT: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I have no problem with being here today and tomorrow.

THE COURT: That could be a problem. I mean, I don't know. I doubt if it would be a problem, but I don't want to put you in that situation. I don't want you to be here thinking about that and not about this case. So, I think what I'll do is I'll go ahead and excuse you. You can leave now. I would ask you -- well, let's see. I was going to tell you to come back Thursday. I guess you won't be able to be back Thursday. So, we'll just excuse you and we'll call you when we need you again. Thank you very much. Call another name.

THE CLERK: Number 41, Rita Janow.

THE COURT: Mrs. Janow, you heard all the questions that we have already asked so far?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yea.

THE COURT: Do you know anything about this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

THE COURT: Do you know any of the people who have been identified here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

THE COURT: Could you give us a little bit about yourself from the sheet there?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm Rita Janow. I work at La-Z-Boy Chair Company in Dayton. My husband is disabled. I have two children. One is 16 and one is 14. And my hobbies are hunting and going with the kids to sports.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you know of any reason why you would not be able to be fair and impartial in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. All right, Mr. Collier, you may proceed.

MR. COLLIER: May I turn the lectern around, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

THE COURT: Oh, wait a minute. We've got Mrs. Harvey.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I have GRI classes on Thursday and Friday this week.

THE COURT: What is that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Graduate Realty Institution. Certification class.

THE COURT: And what time are they?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: From 8:30 to 5 on Thursday and Friday.

THE COURT: Is that something that you have to go to this week? I mean, how does that work?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I have already paid my money.

THE COURT: And you have to go this Thursday and Friday? I'm just asking you. Can it be delayed or not?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I can take it at another time, but I don't know if I'll get credit for the money.

THE COURT: Well, I don't want to put you out any, certainly any money. So, we'll excuse you then. Thank you. We'll call you when we need you again. Anybody else? Mrs. Goodbrad?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Could I have a side bar, please?

THE COURT: Okay. (Side bar conference was held outside the hearing of jury panel, as follows:)

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm close to friend that served time for tax evasion. And so I might have a problem with that.

THE COURT: Do you think that that would prevent you from being fair to the government in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm afraid I might have trouble.

THE COURT: Okay. You're excused. (Side bar conference was concluded and proceedings continued in open court, as follows:)

THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Call two more names.

THE CLERK: Number 116, James Chunn.

THE COURT: Mr. Chunn, if you could sit up here, please, on the front row, on the hot seat up here.

THE CLERK: Number 137, Sharon Herrod.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Chunn, have you heard all the questions that have been asked so far?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you know anything about this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

THE COURT: Do you know any of the people who have been identified here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

THE COURT: Is there any reason why you would not be able to be fair and impartial to both sides in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

THE COURT: Anything about the schedule that I've just mentioned that would prevent you from serving?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. Could you tell us a little bit about yourself?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm James Chunn. I'm a manager at Abe Shavin Hardware on Broad Street. I got three kids: 34, 27, 29. I'm married. And my activities is working around the church in my spare time.

THE COURT: Thank you very much. Mrs. Herrod, do you know anything about this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

THE COURT: Do you know any of the people who have been identified in the courtroom?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

THE COURT: Anything about the schedule that presents a particular problem for you?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

THE COURT: Could you tell us a little bit about yourself?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Sharon Herrod. I work at Erlanger Medical Center. I have two children: nine and 12. I'm married. And I enjoy my children and reading.

THE COURT: Do you know of any reason why you would not be able to be fair and impartial to both sides?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay, I think that does it, Mr. Collier. You can proceed.

MR. COLLIER: Thank you, Your Honor. As Judge Edgar said earlier, my name is Curtis Collier, and I'll be representing the United States in this case. And I would like to ask a few questions. And I'm going to put the questions to everyone in a group. The judge told you that this case involves two counts of failure to file income tax returns. Is there anything at all about the charge, that is, failure to file income tax returns, which creates a problem for you? If so, would you please raise your hand? Is there anyone who has not filed an income tax return, either jointly with your spouse or individually? If so, would you please raise your hand?

THE COURT: Do you expect them to answer that?

MR. COLLIER: Is there anyone who's ever had a problem with the Internal Revenue Service which might cause them some discomfort in sitting on this jury?

THE COURT: You've got one here.

MR. COLLIER: Mr. Anderson?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. COLLIER: And how long ago was that, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: 1980.

MR. COLLIER: 1980?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. COLLIER: About 13 years ago?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. COLLIER: Was that problem resolved?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. COLLIER: Was it resolved to your satisfaction?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. COLLIER: Do you have any lingering bitterness or hostility because of it?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. COLLIER: Do you think you were treated properly?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I believe I was.

MR. COLLIER: Anyone else? Is there anyone who's familiar with what is called the tax protest movement? Does anyone have any philosophical disagreement with the requirement that we all have to file income tax returns? Is there anyone who thinks they'd have difficulty following an instruction from the judge that even though you disagree with a law, you still have to obey that law? Does anyone think they'd have difficulty following an instruction from the Court, if the Court gave such an instruction? That's all I have, Your Honor.

MR. BECRAFT: May it please the Court. Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce myself again. I'm Lowell Becraft, and I'm here to represent Lloyd Long. And just like Mr. Collier did a moment ago, I have a few questions to ask of you. And when I ask a question, I'm going to ask it as a group question. And if you've got a response, just raise your hand. First and foremost, I notice that when we were asking -- when the Court was asking you some questions, there were a number of people that were retired themselves or they had a spouse that was retired. Now, rather than going through my little list here, for those people who responded and said that they were retired, could you raise your hand now? What I'd like to know is, if you've been retired, could you tell us what you did when you weren't retired?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Do which?

MR. BECRAFT: What did you do before you retired?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I was a laborer at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.

MR. BECRAFT: Basically all your adult life?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No. I retired from Roper Corporation as a supervisor.

MR. BECRAFT: And the other parties? Back row.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm retired with Chattanooga Publishing Company. I was a district manager there.

MR. BECRAFT: For how long?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Twenty-eleven years.

MR. BECRAFT: Thank you. Let's take the lady first on the front row here.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm retired from the Soddy-Daisy Water Company. I was a billing clerk.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Yes, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I was director of service operations for Maytag Corporation.

MR. BECRAFT: Anyone else? Yes.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm retired from Varnell Construction.

MR. BECRAFT: From what? I didn't hear you.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Varnell Construction.

MR. BECRAFT: How long were with them?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Thirteen years.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Yes, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm retired out of the United States Navy. Twenty years.

MR. BECRAFT: has there any other hands go up in response to that? Okay. How many of you have been involved in either a civil case or a criminal case personally? You know, a civil case, you know, you either sue somebody or you're getting sued. And in a criminal case, you know, you're the defendant, like Mr. Long. Now, has anybody ever been in that position? Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

MR. BECRAFT: And was it a civil case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir. I had an automobile accident and I was sued.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Can you -- you know, I don't care to know about the details of that. Did it go to jury trial?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Now, you realize that, you know, you've been kind of in the role here of being a defendant. Could you lay that experience aside and let it not have any effect upon, if you're chosen as a juror here, not let it have any effect on your decision in this case??

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

MR. BECRAFT: Any bad feelings you had about the court system, having been in that role?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I've had a civil lawsuit with some people before.

MR. BECRAFT: Did it go to court?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah.

MR. BECRAFT: Jury trial?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: In front of a judge?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah.

MR. BECRAFT: Is there anything about that experience -- you were a defendant in the case; is that right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Uh-huh.

MR. BECRAFT: Is there anything about that experience that you'd like to tell us about that might cause you to be reluctant to sit as a juror in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: None at all.

MR. BECRAFT: So, you can cast aside and forget about that experience and, if you're chosen as a juror here, be independent and not have it affect you, and base your verdict on the evidence in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Were there any other hands? Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: When I was road commissioner for Marion County, I was always getting sued for something.

MR. BECRAFT: A number of times, right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: A number of times.

MR. BECRAFT: Those were civil cases, right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Most of them.

MR. BECRAFT: Were you involved as a defendant in any criminal cases?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I was always defending my position.

MR. BECRAFT: Now, that was a number of times then, right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: This is an entirely different matter. But you've had some experience with the court system. Is there anything that would cause you to be reluctant to sit in this case, from that experience?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir. Not that I know of.

MR. BECRAFT: So, that experience you can lay aside and not have it be any influence on a decision in this case; is that correct?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah.

MR. BECRAFT: I'm sorry, I didn't catch all the hands. Were there some more in response to that question? Okay. Now about, have any of you ever been witnesses in a case, civil or criminal case? Next question., relating to jury service. And it's obvious that you're having to come to court now, but prior to this occasion, did any of you have to sit as a juror or were you called for jury duty in any state or federal case?

THE COURT: I think maybe you'd better reask that.

MR. BECRAFT: I'll do that. Let me just see a show of hands of people who have just been called, like you're going through right now, called but have never sat on a jury. Let me see those hands. Now, for everybody that raised your hand --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Speaking of county? I've served in the county.

MR. BECRAFT: I'm talking about state or federal. You've been called, but haven't sat on a jury. For those that have responded, raised your hand, is there anything that any of you that raised your hand can tell me as to whether or not being called and not serving on a jury, would it have any impact in this case upon your decision? All right. Now, how about can I see a show of hands of people that were called and did sit on a jury, state or federal? Well, could I do this? Could we just go row by row? And I'll just point to you. Is that all right? Let's start over here, seat number two. Sir, did you raise your hand?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah. I've been here but never sat on a jury.

MR. BECRAFT: Well, that's my question. You know, my first question was, if you've been called but didn't sit on a jury. Now, this question relates to actually sitting on a jury. Okay? You know, like in a civil or criminal case, in state or federal court. How about first on the row here? Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Civil trial.

MR. BECRAFT: Was it in state or federal court?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Federal. Downstairs.

MR. BECRAFT: Recently?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head up and down.)

MR. BECRAFT: During the last couple of months maybe?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Uh-huh.

MR. BECRAFT: Now, you recognize this is a criminal case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Uh-huh.

MR. BECRAFT: Can you lay aside your experience in that case and impartially look at the evidence in this case and make a decision.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Civil and criminal. Recently.

MR. BECRAFT: Anything before that time?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: So, you've been on civil and criminal service here in this building the last couple of months?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Right.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Is anything that would affect, the fact that you've sat on those other juries, would it affect your sitting here on this jury?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Criminal. Recently.

MR. BECRAFT: Here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head up and down.)

MR. BECRAFT: Anything that came up during the course of that trial you learned, any feelings or emotions that would maybe not make you suitable for service here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Anyone else in the front row? How about the back row? Down near the end.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I had a criminal. Recently. Here.

MR. BECRAFT: Any service before that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Not state or district. Just local.

MR. BECRAFT: Anything about that service, would it have an impact upon any decision you might make in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: You can lay aside the facts of that case and the outcome of that case and make a decision solely based on the evidence here, right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Criminal. Federal court.

MR. BECRAFT: Recently?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Recently.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. You can cast that aside, and it won't have any impact upon you in this case; is that correct?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head up and down.)

MR. BECRAFT: How about anybody else on the back row?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Criminal. Here.

MR. BECRAFT: Here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Civil. State now.

MR. BECRAFT: The criminal case was here, recently?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No. It's been several years back.

MR. BECRAFT: Was it state or federal?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It was state.

MR. BECRAFT: This is different here. This is in federal court. Federal crimes. And you've sat on a civil jury in state court?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah, in state.

MR. BECRAFT: Would there be anything about your service in those two prior cases that would have a bearing upon any decision you might make in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head from side to side.)

MR. BECRAFT: Let's go to the front row here.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Both. Civil and criminal.

MR. BECRAFT: In state or federal court?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: State and federal both. State recently. Federal, year and a half ago.

MR. BECRAFT: Here in this building?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: For the federal, yeah. Recently. BECRAFT: Would there be anything -- and you've also sat on a state civil case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: State court, yeah.

MR. BECRAFT: Anything about your prior service in those various jury trials that would affect your verdict here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head from side to side.)

MR. BECRAFT: Anyone else on the front row?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Here, recently. State, here, years ago.

MR. BECRAFT: Years ago in the state?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Uh-huh.

MR. BECRAFT: What kind of case was it?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: They were criminal. All of them were criminal.

MR. BECRAFT: And here, recently?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Here, recently.

MR. BECRAFT: Criminal or civil case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Criminal.

MR. BECRAFT: Can you cast aside your previous experience and --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah.

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Civil case. Recently. Here in federal court.

MR. BECRAFT: And asking the same questions, you won't have, your prior service in that case won't have a bearing upon your decision here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: Let's take the second row. Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Criminal. Here.

MR. BECRAFT: Recently?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head up and down.)

MR. BECRAFT: Would there be anything about that service that would affect your decision here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Anyone else on that second row? Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Criminal, federal, about fifteen years ago. Recently, here, criminal.

MR. BECRAFT: Anything about those -- you can cast that aside and base your verdict on the evidence here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head up end down.)

MR. BECRAFT: How about the last row? Anyone?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Here. It was criminal.

MR. BECRAFT: Criminal case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head up and down.)

MR. BECRAFT: You can cast it aside and not have that decision be an influence here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Anyone else in the back row? Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I've had a couple of cases up at the courthouse.

MR. BECRAFT: The Hamilton County Courthouse?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: They were state cases?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: State cases.

MR. BECRAFT: were they civil or criminal?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Both. I had one of each.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Can you cast aside anything you learned in that case or those cases, and base your verdict on the evidence here and act impartially?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head up and down.)

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Criminal, recently, here.

MR. BECRAFT: Again, can you cast aside the outcome, the evidence, everything else that related to that other case, and base your verdict on the evidence here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: For everybody that raised your hand and I've asked questions about jury service, is there anyone here -- I don't know whether I asked the question about everyone, but. can you make certain that you can act impartially and not have that prior service be any influence upon your decision in this case? If so, raise your hand. I'm going to ask a question that's kind of like Mr. Collier's question, but it might be a little bit different and I want to cover it. I know that you've been audited? You had a problem with the IRS?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Right.

MR. BECRAFT: Now, is there anyone else here that has ever been audited by the IRS? Meaning, like they say, you know, "We want to question you about your tax return, bring down your books and records and things of that nature." Anybody here in the box? Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I was. I don't know how long ago. I forget. But I had to pay back taxes because they audited me about eight years ago maybe. I don't know exactly when it was.

MR. BECRAFT: Now, did that problem with the IRS get resolved on a friendly basis?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah. I had to pay it because who my wife was working for at the time, they didn't turn the tax in. So, they audited me and I had to pay back taxes. But it got resolved, you know.

MR. BECRAFT: Do you hold a grudge against the IRS because of this?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: Anyone else in the front row? Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think it was about '72. We had moved to another state and were questioned about contributions. But everything was fine.

MR. BECRAFT: So, you didn't have to pay any additional taxes?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: They just wanted to look at your books?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Uh-huh.

MR. BECRAFT: That doesn't, you don't have a grudge against the IRS, do you?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I was audited once, some years ago, maybe ten or 15 years ago.

MR. BECRAFT: I don't want the details of it, but is there anything about that experience that would cause you to be angry or mad?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I came out ahead. They owed me some more money. It wasn't much, but they owed me some more money.

MR. BECRAFT: Well, obviously that wouldn't affect any decision here. Anyone else on the front row? Okay. Let me take the back row. Anyone ever been audited? Okay. I'll start at the back row back there. Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: 1980.

MR. BECRAFT: They wanted to see your books?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: What was the ultimate outcome of that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I had to pay some additional taxes.

MR. BECRAFT: Now, does that pose any problem for you? Do you have any animosity or a grudge against the IRS?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: If you're picked as a juror, that won't have an effect upon your decision here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Anyone else? Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: About '72 or '73, I just was sent a questionnaire asking questions about some of the contributions or deductions that I had. I answered them and sent them in and never heard anything else from it.

MR. BECRAFT: So, that's not much of a problem. But would the fact that the IRS came and asked you those questions have any bearing upon your decision in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: You don't hold any animosity or grudge towards the IRS?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think it was '74. There was a question about hiring my son to do a job for me. And I paid taxes for three years on that. In other words, my children were doing, one of my boys was doing a job for me and I was paying him salary; and there was a question about whether or not I could because the money was brought to the house. We resolved it because I had to pay it.

MR. BECRAFT: So, the taxes that were ultimately determined were of such an amount that it took you three years to pay it?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, no. It was over a three-year period that they backed up on. Penalized me for that.

MR. BECRAFT: Did you ultimately have to pay a large amount of tax?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir. Well, at that time it was quite a bit. But not a huge amount.

MR. BECRAFT: Well, is there anything about that particular problem that you had that would have a bearing upon you sitting here in this case and being a juror and listening to evidence about taxes?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: They never really answered the question of why I could hire your son to work for me and take that money that I paid off my taxes, but I couldn't hire my own son. It's never been resolved. I mean, I don't have any problem with it now.

MR. BECRAFT: That's fine. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It's been approximately, I guess, 20 years, I don't know. They just went through our receipts and everything, and we paid it. I think that we may have had to pay some, not much. And then my son had a problem approximately five years ago. He worked in the summer, in high school, had a summer job. I think he had to pay a small amount.

MR. BECRAFT: So, those are two different instances?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Uh-huh.

MR. BECRAFT: Is there anything that came up during that situation, your little dispute with the IRS, that could in any way affect your verdict here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Can you cast it aside and not let it bother you?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head up and down.)

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, sir. The last row.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I've had one instance where I received a questionnaire similar to somebody else's, and had to prove my contributions. I did that and that was resolved. The other time I had to pay a small amount of money, and it was resolved.

MR. BECRAFT: Does that cause you to have any ill will or feeling about anybody in the tax system?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Now, let's start over here on the second row. Is that everybody on the back row? Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I was audited in the mid '70s, I guess. It turned out very pleasant. I had a tax credit.

MR. BECRAFT: So, that's very favorable for you.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah.

MR. BECRAFT: Well, I don't guess that had any adverse impact on your beliefs about taxes, did it? You can say that -- that doesn't have an effect upon you? You don't have a grudge against the IRS or anything like that, do you?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head from side to side.)

MR. BECRAFT: Anyone else on the second row? Okay. Now, I know we had some on the front row here.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: The company that my wife worked for paid them off in a lump sue on retirement benefits.

MR. BECRAFT: But it wasn't her personally? Your wife had a problem with her retirement benefits?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It was turned in on our income tax together. It was failed to be turned in. They stretched it out for a period of time, then they sent it to us and it was failed to be turned in. And it was corrected.

MR. BECRAFT: How long ago was that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Probably six or eight years ago.

MR. BECRAFT: And all you had to do is provide additional information to the IRS?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: They provided us with the information that. it had been turned in, and we returned it and it was corrected through them.

MR. BECRAFT: Were there any additional taxes that arose out of this?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: None. I think there was just a very small amount.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Would that have an impact upon your decision of a tax case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I was audited in '79.

MR. BECRAFT: What happened?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: They just made me bring all my receipts and bills and stuff down. Took about two weeks to clear it all up.

MR. BECRAFT: Did you have to pay any additional money?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't think so. Hot at that time.

MR. BECRAFT: Would that have any effect or bearing upon your decision in a case involving taxes?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BECRAFT: Anyone else on this front row? Okay. This might be a -- you-all might've responded to this, but I want to specifically ask this question. Is there anybody here that's ever bean forced to carry a dispute with the IRS to the United States tax court? Let's talk about returns. How many people prepare -- you know, I know that probably during the course of your life, some of you might've used return preparers and at other times you might've done your own return. Let me just ask you this question first. How many people over their lifetimes have always prepared their own returns? Let me see a show of hands. You-all are the only three that have ever -- you've always prepared your own returns? Okay. Can I see your hands again? Sir, did you have any problems with it?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: You never found it necessary to go to see somebody like H & R Block?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Or another return preparer?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don' t make that much money.

MR. BECRAFT: And you, sir, you've always prepared your returns?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: That's correct.

MR. BECRAFT: Is it difficult for you? Do you have any problems with it?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: (Moving head from side to side.)

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I've always done mine. I mean, it's just a short form.

MR. BECRAFT: Find it relatively easy to do?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah.

MR. BECRAFT: Now, I take it the rest of you have at least at some time in the past had someone else that has prepared the return for you; is that right? Can I see a show of hands of somebody that's had somebody else prepare them? I'm going to have to parcel this down here and ask a little bit different question. I want to see a show of hands of everybody that raised your hands just then. Sow many people here really do it for just convenience? Rather than doing it yourself, you'd just rather not take the time. You just carry all your paperwork down to a return preparer and just don't want to bother with it. It's convenient. How many people do that?

Now, let me ask you this, of those who raised your hands and said you had somebody else prepare your returns, how many of you do it because of, you know, it's difficult, it's hard to understand, you don't know anything about the tax laws? How many of you do that, that's your reason?

Have any of you ever worked with the IRS, like representing other people? If they've got a dispute with the IRS, you go in and represent them? Anybody like that? Any of you return preparers? Anybody ever had any accounting education background? Have any of you ever studied the tax laws, like big thick books, Internal Revenue code, tax regulations? Any of you ever studied the laws themselves? Is there anyone here, -- you know, this case, as the Court has told you, involves someone charged, Lloyd Long, charged with tax crimes. Specifically, the government says he willfully failed to file federal income tax returns for two years, '89 and '90.

Is there anyone here that, just knowing the nature of that, just has a possible bias against or you think lowly of someone that's charged in that way? Do you have any mental reservations, you possibly don't like someone that's been charged for such a crime? Anyone feel that way? Now, the Court is going to give you -- I want to ask you some questions about just some general law involving a criminal case. Is there anyone here that doesn't recognize or can't abide by this principle of law, that Lloyd Long right now is clothed with a presumption of innocence? Anyone have any problems with that? Anyone disbelieve that? The mere fact that he might be charged, there's some credibility in it?

Do each of you realize that in this case the government, the people here at this table, have got to prove that Mr. Long committed these crimes, committed these offenses, and the proof has got to be beyond a reasonable doubt? Is there anyone that disagrees with that principle of law? Okay. Is there anyone here that doesn't understand that in a civil case the burden of proof is on the party that's bringing the lawsuit, so to speak. It's a balancing of the scales of justice, you know. The proof is preponderance of evidence. Everyone realize that? But yet in a criminal case, here in America things are a lot different. We've got to prove the guilt of someone beyond a reasonable degree. No one has any problems with that principle of law?

How about, does anyone have a problem with a case, -- you know, this is a little bit different case. This is not like your Perry Mason murder cases, things of that nature. You know, the crime in this case depends upon intent. And you've got to determine the intent of someone, which is what's locked up in their mind. Is there anybody here that's going to have a difficult time or possibly doesn't want to have to decide a case where if you've got a certain intent, you're guilty, if you've got a certain other type of intent, an innocent intent, you're not guilty? Does anyone have a problem with that?

How about, I knew the Court was asking about scheduling, about the length of this case. I know the Court's being extremely cautious, but it looks like to me and from what Mr. Collier said, we might be able to complete this case today or tomorrow. I doubt if we'll go over to Thursday. But, you know, if it did go over to say, like Thursday possibly, is there anyone else that didn't have an answer to what the judge asked about problems going through to Thursday? Is there anybody that has, you know, these -- this is a nice courtroom. You can hear real well, and the speakers are adequate, more than adequate. But, you know, if I step back like this or if somebody was speaking low, would any of you have a problem with hearing what's going on in the courtroom? Is there anybody here that has a problem with seeing? You know, there's going to be documents. I can't believe that. Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I just had RK surgery on this eye yesterday. My vision comes and goes. So, it could possibly present a problem if there were exhibits or something. Mostly my vision is clear, but because of the recency of the surgery...

MR. BECRAFT: What kind of surgery was it?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: RK surgery, where it corrects your vision.

MR. BECRAFT: Where they reshape the cornea so you can have better vision?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Have you done one eye already?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir. Yesterday.

MR. BECRAFT: Does it work?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: Good. I don't think that there's a whole lot of reading that's going to be involved in this case, but, you know, even if you found a document, let's say there was an important letter, would you have any problem, if you're back there in that jury room and needing to read something, do you think you could?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I believe so, yes, sir.

MR. BECRAFT: How long does it take to heal?

THE WITNESS: Well, I could see well within hours.

MR. BECRAFT: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Can each of you here, if you're picked as a juror, listen to the evidence? You're going to have evidence that's going to come into this case through two primary ways: one, we're going to have people who are going to testify, and they're going to tell you certain things. And another part of the evidence in this case is going to be based on documents. And hopefully, I've seen Mr. Collier, he's done his best to keep down the number of documents, and we'll try to keep down the number of documents so there's not a whole lot of reading possibly. But that's the type of evidence that's going to be introduced in this case. Now, is there anyone here that can't assure me that when they get back there in that jury room and they consider these two types of evidence, that they can't base their testimony solely on the evidence that was presented in the trial? Is there anyone that can't do that?

Would anyone here, since we've got the IRS involved in this case, that would possibly be reluctant because, you know, this is a tax case, and you might have some fear of the IRS. Is there someone here that would let something like that creep into your decisionmaking process and have it affect your verdict? Everybody can lay aside the fact that the IRS is involved and not let it affect your verdict? That's it, Your Honor. Thank you very much.

THE COURT: All right. Complete the forms and submit them to the court officer. Ladies and gentlemen, this will take just a few minutes. we're going to take a break as soon as we get through with this, but the lawyers will have to prepare their challenges here. So, if you could, just hold off just for a few minutes. You can relax in place for just a moment. It's okay if you want to talk or whatever you want to do at this time. Just briefly relax while the lawyers get their challenges together.

MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, could we approach side bar? (Side bar conference was held outside the hearing of the jury, as follows;)

MR. BECRAFT: If we're not going to alternate, do you just want to me to hand you the slip with all the strikes?

THE COURT: All the strikes.

MR. BECRAFT: I've got about four more to go, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. (Side bar conference was concluded and proceedings continued in open court, as follows:)

THE COURT: All right. The following jurors will be excused. Please don't leave the courtroom yet, because I want to make sure that before I excuse you that I haven't made any mistakes. The following jurors can at this time reseat yourselves in the spectator portion of the courtroom. Those people are: Ms. Carson, 16; Ms. Williams, 75; Ms. Richardson, 169; Ms. Runyan, 171; Ms. Beard, 4; and everybody in the back two rows of the chairs. All right. That's 14 jurors remaining. Have I made any mistakes, gentlemen?

MR. BECRAFT: No complaints from me.

THE COURT: Acceptable to you, Mr. Collier?

MR. COLLIER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Olson, if you'd move down two seats. And then if I could get you, Mr. Boling and Mr. Morrow, would you-all sit in these front two seats down here? Move down there. And then Mr. Layne and Mr. Hicks, you need to move out and let them move down. And then if you-all would move down to the end. Just reverse your seating there, if you would, sir. There you go. We're just trying to keep all this straight here. Okay. And then, Mr. Wilcox, you and Mr. Kilgore and Ms. Roark and Mr. Foster, if you would please come up and sit in the back four. And then Ms. Clark and Ms. Tripp, if you'd come down and sit in these two seats here, please. Okay. If you-all would please then, I'm going to administer one more oath to you. So, if you'd please stand at this time and raise your right hands. (Jury sworn.)

THE COURT: All right. Those of you who came but either were not called or were excused, you are now excused. Thank you for coming. Please come back Thursday, day after tomorrow, at nine o'clock. We're going to take a break right now. I'll just give one cautionary instruction at this time, and then I'll give you some more in just a moment. Do not discuss this case with anyone or permit anyone to discuss it with you until, of course, you're given the case to decide after the close of all the evidence. All right. We'll be in recess now for about ten minutes, or until 11 o'clock. (Morning recess was had.)

THE COURT: Members of the jury, now that you've been sworn, I will give you some preliminary instructions to guide you in your participation in this trial. It will be your duty to find from the evidence what the facts are. You and you alone are the judges of those facts, and you'll have to apply those facts to the law that the Court will give you, and you must follow that law whether you agree with it or not. Nothing that the Court may say or do, the Court being me, may say or do during the course of the trial should be taken by you as indicating what your verdict should be. The evidence from which you will find the facts will consist of the testimony of witnesses, documents, other things that are received into the record as exhibits, and any facts that the lawyers may agree or stipulate to or that the Court may instruct you to find.

Some things, however, are not evidence. Among those things are statements and arguments and questions by the lawyers. These are not evidence. Lawyers do have an obligation to their client to make an objection when they feel that the evidence that's being offered is not properly admissible here under the rules of evidence. But you shouldn't be influenced by the objection itself or by my ruling on it. If I sustain an objection, then the witness will not be allowed to answer it; and you should just ignore the question. If I overrule it, then treat the answer that the witness will then give just like you would any other answer that a witness might give here. Any testimony that I have excluded or told you to disregard is not evidence and must not be considered by you. Anything that you may have seen or heard outside the courtroom is not evidence and must be disregarded because you must decide the case solely on the evidence presented here in the courtroom.

There are two kinds of evidence: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct is direct proof of a fact. For example, the testimony of an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is proof of facts from which you may infer or conclude that other facts exist. I'll give you some further instructions on these as well as other matters at the end of the case, but keep in mind that you may consider both kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial. It will be up to you to decide which witnesses to believe, which witnesses not to be believe, or how much of any witness's testimony to accept or reject. And I will give you some guidelines for determining the credibility of witnesses at the end of the case.

As you know, this is a criminal case. There are some basic rules about a criminal case that you must keep in mind. First, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The superseding information against the defendant brought by the government is only an accusation, nothing more than that. It's not proof of guilt or anything else. So, as I've said earlier, the defendant starts out with a clean slate. Second, the burden of proof is on the government. The defendant has no burden to prove his innocence or to present any evidence or to testify. And since the defendant has the right to remain silent, the law prohibits you in arriving at your verdict from considering that the defendant may not have testified; that is, of course, if he elects not to testify. Third, the government must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And I'll give some further instructions on this point later. Bear in mind, however, that in this respect a criminal case is different from a civil case. Some of you have sat on both.

Just a few words about your conduct as jurors. During the trial you should not discuss the case with anyone or permit anyone to discuss it with you. This includes members of your family. So, until you retire to the jury room at the end of the case to deliberate on your verdict, you are simply not to talk about the case. Second, do not read or listen to anything about the case should there be anything on the news media about the case. Third, do not do any investigation or research about the case on your own. And finally, do not form an opinion about the case until you've heard all the evidence. Wait until you hear both sides until you make up your mind. If at any time during the trial anybody wants to take a break, there's a personal problem or need we can help you with, don't hesitate to let us know, because we want to make sure we accommodate you in any way that we reasonably can.

All right. The trial is now about to begin. And what will happen is the government will make an opening statement first. That's just an outline to help you understand the evidence as it comes in. Next the defendant's attorney way, but is not required to make an opening statement. Opening statements are neither evidence or argument. It's just outlines of what that party intends to show in the case. The government will then present its witnesses whom the defendant may cross-examine. Following the government's case the defendant may, if he wishes, present witnesses and the government may then cross-examine. After all the evidence is in, the attorneys will present to you their closing arguments in which they summarize and interprete the facts in the case from their particular point of view. And then after that I will instruct you on the law as applicable to this case, and then you will retire to deliberate on your verdict. Any party wish to invoke the rule with respect to sequestration of witnesses?

MR. BECRAFT: I've only got one. I don't imagine there's going to be any other government witnesses in here, but if they have I might as well invoke the rule.

THE COURT: Any other witnesses other than the expert, Mr. Collier?

MR. COLLIER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, we'll just say for the record that the rule is invoked, and that applies, of course, to both sides. Any people, other than the matters that we've already discussed, who are going to be testifying should remain outside the courtroom until they're called. They should be advised, and I put responsibility on the counsel in the case for this, that they should not discuss with witnesses who have previously testified anything about their testimony nor should they discuss that testimony with the lawyers. All right. Ready with opening statements, Mr. Collier?

MR. COLLIER: Yes, Your Honor. May it please the Court, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, again, I am Curtis Collier. I am an assistant United States attorney, and for this case I will be representing the United States of America. Assisting me in this case is Special Agent Michael Geasley of the Internal Revenue Service. He's the case agent in this matter. That means that he's the person who investigated the underlying facts and brought those facts to the attention of the United States attorney's office which resulted in the United States filing charges in this particular matter. As the Court told you, this is an opening statement, and this is the time when the lawyers for each side tell you what they think the evidence in the case is going to be and what that evidence should mean to you. You can look at an opening statement as a road map. If you're about to set out on a trip and you have a road map, then you know what route you're going to take. You also know what you're going to see along the way, and in case there's a detour you'll know how to get back on course. Sometimes, for scheduling problems or other problems, we have to call witnesses out of their logical order. And an opening statement helps you understand the evidence that comes in, if it does not come in in any logical manner. As you know, this is a tax case. It is a criminal tax case. The specific crimes, and there are two crimes charged here, are failure to file income tax returns. The defendant is charged in a document called a bill of information. There are two counts. The first count of that bill of information relates to the year 1989 and the second count relates to the year 1990. Other than the amount of money that the defendant earned in those two years and the difference in the years themselves, both charges read exactly alike. In order to find a person guilty of a crime in this country, it is necessary to find a person guilty of certain elements of the offense. And Judge Edgar at the conclusion of the case will tell you what those elements are. And I submit that Judge Edgar will tell you that to find Mr. Long guilty -- Mr. Long is the defendant in this case. To find him guilty, you have to find that, one, he was required to file income tax returns; two, that he failed to file those returns when they were due; and three, his failure to file his returns was willful, that is, it was not due to a mistake. In determining the quilt or innocence of a person, you have to rely upon the proof. And the proof in this case will be from witnesses who will testify, be sworn and will testify from that stand, and also certain exhibits that the Court will admit into evidence. The evidence in the case is going to show you that Mr. Long was employed in 1989 and 1990. In each of those two years he earned more than $45,000 in income. He worked for Maury County, Maury County, Tennessee, in each of those two years. And you'll have a chance to see the income that he earned from Maury County. You'll be able to see this income in the form of Form 1099s that he was issued and that also was provided to the Internal Revenue Service. And you will see that just from Maury County, in 1989 he made $47,750. For the next year, 1990, from the same entity, Maury County, he made $48,657. You will hear this from a witness who will take the stand. He also did some work for a company called Grower's Chemical. Again you will see the income that he earned from this company. Again this will be in the form of a Form 1099. And you will hear that he made $742.50 in 1989. That's in addition to the money he received from Maury County. Lastly, you will hear from someone from the ADEC Federal Credit Union. ADEC stands for the Arnold Engineering Development Center, and that's Arnold Air Force Base. That's what the operation of Arnold Air Force is called over near Tullahoma, the Arnold Engineering Development Center. In 1989, he received $810.91 from them, and in 1990 he earned or he made $843.02 from them. Again, this evidence will be presented to you in the form of the Form 1099, along with testimony from a witness. Next you will hear that the defendant was required to file an income tax return. And you will have a witness who will come before you and who will show you this chart. And this chart will tell you that there are certain requirements for people to file income tax returns. And giving Mr. Long the benefit of the doubt, taking into account that he is married and could've filed a joint return and that be had two children, that for a person in his circumstances, in 1989 if he made more than $9,200 you have to file an income tax return. For the next year, 1990, the amount was $9,550. There are certain time elements when these returns have to be filed, and that's set out in number two here. And it has to be filed by April 15th of the next year, unless April 15th falls on a holiday or weekend. If it falls on a holiday or weekend, then it's the next business day. And in 1990, April 15th happened to fall on a Sunday. So, the next day, the 16th, was a Monday, so that's when that return should've been filed. And lastly, the return should've been filed with certain offices of the Internal Revenue Service. It could've been filed with the service center. And from Mr. Long's home that service center would've been in Memphis, Tennessee. It could've been filed with the district director for the Internal Revenue Service in Nashville, Tennessee, or Mr. Long could've taken it to any local IRS office and just filed it himself. Now, you will hear that Mr. Long did not file his income tax returns for those two years. You will hear that a search was made of the records of the Internal Revenue Service and no evidence could be found that he had filed his returns for those two years. You will also hear evidence that Mr. Long's failure to file his income tax return was willful. And you're going to be able to conclude that it was willful because you're going to learn that Mr. Long is a very mature individual. He's very intelligent. He's educated. He's experienced. Mr. Long has a college degree. He went to college and received a bachelor's degree. After he received his bachelor's degree, he went back to college and received a master's degree. Additionally, Mr. Long was told that he had to file an income tax return. After all the evidence is in, you must decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. That decision must be made based upon the evidence that comes into this court and the instructions which you'll receive from Judge Edgar. The United States submits that after listening to the judge's instructions and considering the evidence, you're going to conclude that this defendant knew what he was doing and that he willfully failed to file his income tax returns and, therefore, that your decision in this case will be that the defendant is guilty as charged as to both counts in the bill of information. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Becraft?

MR. BECRAFT: May it please the Court. And before I proceed I have one question. I know that the Court told me on Friday that there might be a fire drill at 11:45. If it happens then, I can make it. But Mr. Collier told me a minute ago we might be breaking at 11:30.

THE COURT: It's my information it's 11:45. I hope you'll be through by then.

MR. BECRAFT: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Mr. Collier, I know, feels this. I know the Court does, I do, Mr. Leonard and Mr. Long, we all realize that you could've come down here and come up with a reason to get out of service in this case. Nonetheless, by your own choice, you've been through this process of asking questions and you've indicated a willingness to be jurors in this case when you could've been doing something else, such as being home with your family or being at work. And on behalf of everybody on this side of the courtroom, I want to tell you we appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Now, Mr. Collier mentioned a moment agao that the government has got to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And he also told you that there are certain elements that the government has got to prove in this case. And I want to restate those for you again so that you'll understand what your task is when you decide this case. First the government has to show that Lloyd Long was required to file a return. Secondly, they have to prove that he didn't. And that third element, and this is the element I want to talk to you right now, the "Criminal State of mind."

The question is did Lloyd Long willfully, meaning with a criminal state of mind, deliberately fail to file his returns or did he have an innocent good faith belief, a reason that he's done what he's done. Now that's the bottom line issue. Now, I know that during voir dire when we were asking you some questions, you were told by everybody on this side of the courtroom, the Court, Mr. Collier, myself, were told this is a failure to file case. And it seems like to me that the most logical question that would pop into anybody's mind would be, "Well, why did this happen? What's the reason?" And I want to tell you what the reason is.

First let me tell you a little bit about Lloyd Long. He was born here in Tennessee in 1948. We went to --

MR. COLLIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. Mr. Becraft has gone on about five or six minutes and he hasn't once said what evidence he's going to present or what type of theory he's going to have. He's really making an argument.

THE COURT: We want just a summary of what your evidence is going to be.

MR. BECRAFT: That's exactly -- I was just getting ready to get into that, Your Honor. That was my, the last words out of my mouth. He went to school, a small school over in the county in which he lived. He ultimately graduated from high school and then he went to college. He graduated from college and went on to become a master's -- to get a master's degree. Now, Lloyd has some education behind him. But I think you're going to find that the evidence in this case is going to show that what Lloyd has done basically in his lifetime, he's been a shop teacher. The first couple of jobs that he had was mechanical. He would teach students in school how to, I guess, turn wood and how to make metal instruments. But, you know, that's Lloyd's background. And he did that for a number of years.

And then I think in the mid '80s he didn't do this, and he was, I think, selling Shakley products. And later on, for the years that we're dealing with, he went back to teaching, and he went over here to Saturn. He lived about a hundred miles away from the Saturn plant. But they needed somebody to teach people that worked at Saturn how to make tools, how to make parts, things of that nature. So, Lloyd is very mechanical and he teaches. And that, in essence, is who Lloyd Long is.

Now, in explanation of the charges here, he's going to tell you why he did what he did, and it's going to start off back in 1982. In 1982 he went to a meeting, and there was a fellow by the name of George Gordon there. And it was up at the Smokehouse Inn in Sewanee, which is right up the hill from where Lloyd lives. And he attended this meeting and he learned that he has certain rights. He had learned them in high school; but, as time went by he began to forget a lot of rights, like we all do. He learned to appreciate that the United States Constitution protects an undefined amount of rights, one of which is the right to work. Now, he came to the realization that he has a right to work and, therefore, he can take his labor and he can go out here and swap his labor for a paycheck for whomever he's working.

And as a result of attending that meeting he learned that the United States Constitution authorizes the federal government to impose two types of taxes. And he'll explain these to you in better detail than I can. But there are two types of taxes: direct and indirect taxes. And he came to the conclusion, after much studying, which includes reading materials such as this little book here, hopping into his car with a bunch of people and going up to the Vanderbilt law library, coming down here to the Hamilton County law library, going to other law libraries, I believe up in Sewanee and a few other places around mid Tennessee. He did some studying, and he reached the conclusion that in a constitutional sense, the federal income tax is an excise. And then he read some Supreme Court cases and he was told what an excise tax is. He learned that an excise tax is one that's imposed upon corporations, the manufacture and sale of commodities, and people who are in licensed, privileged positions. So, he reached the conclusion in his own mind and based upon what he had read and based upon some government reports and statements of that nature that he's not in a privileged position. He doesn't have to have a license to do what he's doing. And therefore he reached the conclusion that the federal income tax applies to a limited group of people and he's not somebody that falls in that class.

Now, that's one belief that he had. Later on in time he learned something. He attended another meeting, and he watched a video, and I think he saw -- he attended a meeting with George Gordon in person and he watched some videotapes of this fellow by the name of George Gordon. And you're going to hear a lot more about him. But on another occasion later in time, I guess about '85, '86, '87, somewhere right along there, he was looking at another videotape, a fellow by the name of Carter, I believe. And this fellow was talking about a law that Congress passed back in 1974, the Privacy Act. And that law required that the government go out here when they're asking questions -- when the government expects you to do something, they got to tell you the laws that require you to do something. So, Lloyd Long was told about this, and he was told that the IRS publishes a thing known as a Privacy Act notice. We're going to introduce it into evidence. And there are just three laws mentioned in this notice. And what Lloyd did is he studied those laws.

Now, I want tell you something about the evidence in this case. As the Court told you a moment ago, all the law that you're going to get in this case is going to come from the Court when this case is over with and it's about time for you to decide this case. Now, Lloyd Long, when he gets up here and he talks about the things that he read, such as Supreme Court cases, books, the code, he's not going to be telling you what the law is. What he will tell you is his belief about the law. And you've got to take what he says and imagine in your mind that this is a belief, and then you're going to have to compare it with the jury instructions that the Court gives at the conclusion of the case. But even when you make that comparison, you've got to say, well, was Lloyd right or was he wrong? If he was wrong, you've got to determine whether it's an innocent mistake, good faith belief, or whether this is, you know, he's guilty, he really knew that he had to do these things.

And I say this at this point in time because I'm getting ready to tell you some things about what Lloyd Long believed the law to be. He believed, after reading some sections out of the Internal Revenue code, and he's going to tell you what they were, Section 6001, 6011, 6012 of the Internal Revenue code. He studied those, he watched a video and he deliberated and read cases. And he reached the conclusion that the people who are required to file a return under the laws the IRS told him about are people who are liable for a tax. A specific term of art, so to speak. And so, knowing that only people are liable to file a -- who are liable for a tax are required to file a return, he sat down and went through -- well, this is the only one that's in easy reach, but it's a book like this. This is a different type of book. But it's big paperback book called the Internal Revenue Code. And he commenced a study of that, and he was looking for one thing: is there a law in the Internal Revenue code that makes me liable for the income tax? And he studied and he studied and he studied. And lo and behold, over a period he reached a conclusion it's not there.

Now, Lloyd, in summary, has two beliefs. First and foremost, he believes that the real nature of the federal income tax is that it's an excise tax. And he also believes that an excise tax is a very specific thing, applies, insofar as people are concerned, to people who are in privileged occupations. And he's not in a privileged occupation, so he believes as a consequence of that, that he's not required to file a return. Secondly, this argument about relying upon what the IRS said, he studied those laws and he reached another conclusion that, hey, the people who are required to file a return are people who are liable for a tax, and I don't find in the Internal Revenue code where I'm liable for the tax. And at this stage in time both of these beliefs kind of fell together, kind of like a hand in a glove. The reason why he couldn't find a section in the Internal Revenue code that made him liable for the tax is because he's not in an occupation that's a privileged position.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is a thumbnail sketch of what I expect the evidence in this case to be. Lloyd Long, after the government gets through with their case, which might take them a couple of hours to present this afternoon, after that happens he's going to take that witness stand and he's going to tell you this same story. And we're going to offer, not many, but we're going to offer some of the documents that he relied upon. And then we're going to also offer a string of letters. When he reached these conclusions, he started writing the IRS, "Well, tell me if I'm right or wrong." And you know what, ladies and gentlemen? They wrote back such letters as there's no definition of the word income in the Internal Revenue code, which is a mindblower to him. And they never answered his questions. Now, I think the facts that are going to come from the witness stand from Lloyd Long's mouth and from the documents he's going to introduce into evidence, there's but one conclusion that you can reach in this case: he may be wrong, but his belief is an innocent belief. His belief is a good faith belief. He attempted to learn what the law is. He reached a certain conclusion. That conclusion might be wrong, but it's an innocent belief and it's one you don't send people to -- you don't convict people for. And that's what the evidence in this case is going to show.

And I feel confident that after this case is over and Lloyd gets down off the stand and we get ready to sum up in this case, Mr. Collier is going to give you a closing argument and I'm going to give you a closing argument. But I think by the time we reach that stage of this trial, you will comprehend and understand one thing, what the evidence in this case shows: Lloyd Long is not guilty of any crime in this case. And I expect you to return a not guilty verdict. Thank you very such.

THE COURT: All right. Since we do have a fire alarm I'm told scheduled for in about seven minutes, I guess we probably ought to go ahead and evacuate the place. So, ladies and gentlemen, please come back at 1:15. That'll give you a little over an hour and a half for lunch. Be back here at 1:15 and we'll resume the trial at that time. While you're away from here, remember what I told you about not discussing the case and the other admonitions I gave you.

MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, before we dismiss could we approach the bench for a minute?

THE COURT: Sure. Do you want it on the record?

MR. BECRAFT: No, Your Honor. (Bench conference was held outside the hearing of the jury and court reporter, following which proceedings continued in open court as follows:)

THE COURT: Remember what I told you, ladies and gentlemen. The parties in the case obviously can't talk to you. So, when they don't talk to you, don't feel offended or anything like that. That's part of the program. Okay. We'll be in adjournment until 1:15.

(Luncheon recess.)

AFTERNOON SESSION 1:15 p.m.

BARBARA BELANGER, called as a witness at the instance of the Government, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COLLIER:

Q Please state your name, please.

A Barbara Belanger.

Q And how do you spell your last name?

A B as in boy, e-l-a-n-g-e-r.

Q And how you spell your first name?

A Barbara, B-a-r-b-a-r-a.

Q In what city and state do you reside?

A Lawrenceburg, Tennessee.

Q And are you employed at this time?

A Yes, I am.

Q How are you employed?

A I am employed by Nauru County Board of Education as an industrial training administrative assistant.

Q Do you know the defendant in this case, Lloyd Long?

A Yes, sir.

Q Is he present in court today?

A Yea, sir, he is.

Q Would you please point him out?

A That's Mr. Long (indicating).

MR. BECRAFT: We'll stipulate it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No need to. Let's go.

Q I'm going to show you some documents and ask you if you can identify them.

A Yes, sir. This is Mr. Long's payroll checks, copies and endorsements, and invoice records, ledger sheets, and contracts.

Q And are those records of Maury County?

A Yes, they are.

Q Were those records kept and maintained in the regular course of business of Maury County?

A Yes.

Q And the entries depicted in those records, were they made at or near the times depicted?

A Pardon me?

Q Were the entries that you see in those records, were those entries put in those records at or near the time that the records indicate? For example --

A Yes.

MR. COLLIER: Your Honor, we would move the introduction of Government Exhibit No. l.

MR. BECRAFT: No objection.

THE COURT: Received. Government's 1. (Government Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.)

Q I'm going to show you what has been marked as Government Exhibit No. 2 and ask if you can identify that?

A Yes. Mr. Long's 1989 1099 form.

Q And is that a record of Maury County?

A Yes, sir, it is.

Q Was that record maintained and kept by Maury County in the regular course of business?

A Yes.

Q Were the entries on that document made at or near the times shown on that document?

A Yes, sir.

MR. COLLIER: We offer that, Your Honor.

MR. BECRAFT: No objection.

THE COURT: Received. Government's 2. (Government Exhibit 2 was recieved into evidence.)

Q Now, I'm going to show you what has been marked as Government 3. What are those records?

A We have 1990 checks, endorsements, contracts, ledgers, copies of his checks, invoices, and contract.

Q And are those records of Maury County?

A Yes, sir.

Q And were they kept and maintained in the regular course of business?

A Yes, sir.

MR. COLLIER: We'd offer those, Your Honor.

MR. BECRAFT: No objection.

THE COURT: Received. Government's 3. (Government Exhibit 3 was received into evidence.)

Q Number 4, what is that?

A This is a copy of Mr. Long's 1990 1099 form from Maury County Board.

Q For what year?

A 1990.

Q And is that a record of the Maury County?

A Yes, sir.

Q Was it maintained and kept in the regular course of business?

A Yes, sir.

MR. COLLIER: We offer that, Your Honor.

MR. BECRAFT: No objection.

THE COURT: Received. Government's 4. (Government Exhibit 4 was received into evidence.)

Q I'm going to ask you to take a look at Government's Exhibits S-1 and S-2, summary sheets. And what I'd like you to do is to write on the bottom for each year the income that Mr. Long earned from Maury County. Can you do that? Do you need something to write with?

A (Witness complies.)

MR. COLLIER: Your Honor, we'd offer those and we'd ask that those be published.

THE COURT: Okay. S-1 and S-2. Received. (Government Exhibits S-1 and S-2 were received into evidence.)

Q The last document is Government Exhibit No. 5. Do you recognize that?

A Yes, sir.

Q What is that?

A This is a resume from Mr. Long.

Q Was that in the records of Maury County?

A Yes, sir, it is.

Q And was it kept and maintained in the regular course of business of Maury County?

A Yes.

MR. COLLIER: We offer that, Your Honor.

MR. BECRAFT: No objection.

THE COURT: Received. Government's 5. (Government Exhibit 5 was received into evidence.)

MR. COLLIER: We tender the witness, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Cross-examination?

MR. BECRAFT: Yes, sir, very briefly.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BECRAFT:

Q Ms. Belanger?

A Belanger.

Q Thank you. Did you know Lloyd Long before, say, June of 1988?

A No, sir.

Q Did you meet him sometime around the first of July of '88?

A No, sir. I met Mr. Long January of 1990.

Q Okay. The first time in your life was then?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do the records that you've introduced into evidence show basically what Mr. Long was doing during these years?

A They showed his work, yes, sir.

Q Maury County was providing to the Saturn plant?

A We provided Mr. Long -- well, I can't say employment. He was a contractor with the industrial training service program that was administered through the Maury County Board of Education.

Q So, the Board of Education hired him to work out at the Saturn plant to teach people; is that correct?

A That's right.

Q And so, do your records reflect that in July of 1981, July 1st, specifically -- of 1988, I'm sorry, he was hired by Maury County?

A Yes.

Q For this purpose?

A Yes.

Q All right.

A It would be a contract.

Q These contracts are a year long each time?

A No. Some ran for six months, some ran for a year, some ran for three months.

Q So, we've got maybe four or five contracts in the documents you've introduced, right?

A Sure.

Q Now, he quit working for Maury County sometime in 1991, March of 1991; is that correct?

A April 30, 1991.

Q And during that entire time frame he was doing this type of work, the same type of work?

A Yes, sir.

Q At the Saturn plant, teaching people, right?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay. Now, I didn't catch and you didn't read into the record, the prosecution showed you, Mr. Collier showed you Exhibits No. S-1 and S-2?

A Yes.

Q I'm sure the figure, while circulating ....

A $48,675.

Q 675?

A Yes, sir.

Q How often did you meet with Mr. Long? If you met him sometime in 1990 and he was there for basically a little more than a year, did you meet him on several occasions?

A Well, I met with him quite often. I ordered supplies for him. I picked up his payroll every two weeks. But we did not always have personal contact when I picked up payroll, invoices.

Q And since July -- I mean, since March of 1991, you haven't had any further contact with him, have you?

A No, just one or two telephone conversations.

MR. BECRAFT: Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. COLLIER: No, Your Honor. Call Theresa Tucker.

THE COURT: You may step down. You're free to leave. Next witness. Theresa Tucker. (Witness excused.)

THERESA TUCKER, called as a witness at the instance of the Government, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COLLIER:

Q Please state your name for the record.

A My name is Theresa Tucker.

Q And how do you spell your first name?

A T-h-e-r-e-s-a.

Q And how do you spell your last name?

A Tucker, T-u-c-k-e-r.

Q In what city and state do you reside?

A I live in Winchester, Tennessee.

Q And how are you employed at this time?

A I am employed at AEDC Federal Credit Union in Tullahoma, Tennessee.

Q What position do you hold there?

A I'm a collection clerk.

Q I'm going to show you two documents that have been marked for identification as Government Exhibit 6 and 7. Did you recognize those documents?

A I do.

Q And what are they?

A These are 1099 or interest income forms.

Q For who?

A They're for Lloyd R. Long.

Q And for what years are they?

A For 1989 and 1990.

Q Were those records kept and maintained in the regular course of business of the AEDC Federal Credit Union?

A They were.

Q And were the records -- were the entries in those records made at or near the time that's shown in the records?

A They were.

MR. COLLIER: Your Honor, we would offer into evidence those two exhibits.

MR. BECRAFT: No objection.

THE COURT: Six and 7 are received. (Government Exhibits 6 and 7 were received into evidence.)

Q I'd now like to show you what has been marked for identification as Government Exhibits S-3 and S-4. And what I'd like you do is to write on those two exhibits the sums that your records indicate Mr. Long received from the credit union in those two years.

A (Witness complies.)

MR. COLLIER: We'd offer those, Your Honor. I'd like those published.

THE COURT: Okay. They're received. That's Government's S-3 and S-4. (Government Exhibits S-3 and S-4 were received into evidence.)

MR. COLLIER: we tender the witness.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BECRAFT:

Q Briefly, Ms. Tucker, the AEDC Credit Union is located in Winchester, right?

A Tullahoma, Tennessee.

Q Tullahoma, I'm sorry. And Lloyd Long had an account with the credit union, correct?

A That's correct.

Q And basically, that account was a savings account?

A Savings account and a CD account mainly, and a checking account.

Q Okay. And these 1099s, 6 and 7 that you've offered through your testimony, for 1989 how much did you report? We didn't have it read to us. I'd like to know.

A 1989, $810.91. 1990, $843.02.

Q So, that was the interest that was paid by your credit union to him for those years as a result of having some funds in the account, right?

A That's correct.

Q And on Exhibits No. S-3 and S-4, what you put down is those figures, 810 and 843; is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q You don't know Lloyd Long personally, do you?

A No, I do not.

MR. BECRAFT: Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Can this witness be excused?

MR. COLLIER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may step down. You're free to leave. Thank you. (Witness excused.)

THE COURT: Next witness.

MR. COLLIER: Rebecca Signs. REBECCA SIGNS, called as a witness at the instance of the Government, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COLLIER:

Q Please state your name.

A Rebecca Signs.

Q In what city and state do you reside?

A I live a Milan, Ohio.

Q And how are you employed at this time?

A I've been employed for fifteen years.

Q And who is your employer?

A J. P. Henry.

Q And do you work for a particular company?

A Grower's Chemical.

Q And where is Grower's Chemical located?

A In Milan, Ohio.

Q And what business is it engaged in?

A We make liquid fertilizer.

Q I'd like to show you what we've marked for identification as Government Exhibits 8 and 9 and ask if you can identify those two exhibits?

A Yes.

Q Are those records of Grower's Chemical?

A Yes.

Q Were those records kept and maintained in the regular course of business of Grower's Chemical?

A Yes.

Q Would you explain to the members of the jury what those two records are?

A The one is a payroll check that he earned from commissions and the other one is a 1099.

Q And who's the he" who earned the payroll commission?

A Lloyd R. Long.

MR. COLLIER: We'd offer those, Your Honor.

MR. BECRAFT: No objection.

THE COURT; Eight and 9. They're received. (Government Exhibits 6 and 9 were received into evidence.)

Q I'm now going to show you what's marked as Government Exhibit S-5. What I'd like you to do is to write on the bottom of that exhibit the amount of money shown in your records as being received by Mr. Long for that year.

A (Witness complies.)

MR. COLLIER: We'd offer that. We'd like that published.

THE COURT: All right. That's S-5.

MR. BECRAFT: No objection.

THE COURT: Received. (Government Exhibit S-5 was received into evidence.)

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BECRAFT:

Q Ma'am, Grower's Chemical is the company that you work for?

A Yes.

Q And they sell fertilizer?

A Yes.

Q And at some time in I guess '88, '89, '90, somewhere along there, Lloyd Long was working for the company as a salesman?

A Yes.

Q Now, Exhibits 8 and 9 are precisely what? Are they one payroll check, two payroll checks?

A One payroll check.

Q That would be Exhibit No. 8?

A Yes.

Q How much was that for?

A $742.50.

Q And so Exhibit No. 9, which is the 1099, is for the same amount; is that correct?

A Correct.

Q All right. Would it be -- is this the relationship that Mr. Long had with your company; he sold fertilizer, he received commission on the sales and you cut one check during 1989, I guess, for the amount of the sales?

A Correct.

Q So this check, Exhibit No. 8, is dated when?

A June 13th of 1989.

MR. BECRAFT: Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You can step down, ma'am. You're free to leave. Thank you. (Witness excused.)

THE COURT: Next witness.

MR. COLLIER: Next witness is Libby Jeu.

ELIZABETH JEU, called as a witness at the instance of the Government, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testifies as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COLLIER:

Q Please state your name for the record.

A Elizabeth Jeu, J-e-u.

Q And in what city and state do you reside?

A Tennessee. Memphis, Tennessee

Q And do you work at this time?

A I work at the Internal Revenue Service, the Memphis Service Center.

Q And would you explain to the members of the jury what the Memphis Service Center is and what it does?

A The Memphis Service Center is the place where taxpayers send their returns to be processed into the system to create permanent records.

Q And what position do you hold with the service center?

A I'm a tax examiner with the criminal investigation branch.

Q And can you tell the members of the jury where someone who resides in Decherd, Tennessee, would file their income tax returns?

A They would file their returns at the Memphis service center in Memphis, Tennessee.

Q Now, once income tax returns are filed with the service center, can you explain to us what happens with regard to the return once it is filed?

A When we receive the taxpayer's return it's blocked into the types of returns, whether it's a 1040A or a 1040. Then it goes through the system of being edited as far as legibility and numbers. Then it goes to the computer area where it's transcribed and creates the permanent record. Then the paper document itself goes to the files within the service center for a certain length of time and then for its final destination to the Federal Records Center.

Q Now, this procedure that you have described, how long have you been knowledgeable about this procedure?

A Approximately 18 years.

Q Now, the income tax returns themselves, once they're filed with the service center are they kept and maintained in the regular course of business of the Internal Revenue Service?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, in addition to the returns themselves, can you tell us whether any other records are generated within the Internal Revenue Service showing that a return has in fact been filed and when that return was filed?

A Well, the permanent record would indicate if the return was filed and processed for that particular person under their social security number.

Q And are these records, the records that you just referred to, are they kept and maintained?

A Yes.

Q And are they relied upon within the Internal Revenue Service?

A Yes.

PART 2