VOIR DIRE AND THE CRIMINAL TAX CASE
If you have been attacked criminally by the IRS, it is imperative that you begin to prepare your case as soon as possible.
In order to effectively counter a criminal charge, you must understand the process of Voire Dire.
At the beginning of the trial, the jury will be chosen. In order to get the most appropriate jurors, there is a process
used in the courts called "Voire Dire"
which refers to the process of questioning the jury to establish their appropriateness for the particular trial.
In a Federal District Court, the judge usually asks the questions to the jury, but sometimes the plaintiff and defense also
get to ask questions. In any event, however, you must be prepared to give the judge a list of questions that you wish
asked on voire dire.
The following questions are suggested for the defendant's use in a criminal
tax trial. Please read these over and note them. You may wish to modify them to fit your particular situation.
SAMPLE VOIRE DIRE QUESTIONS:
1. Do you understand
that an indictment is not evidence of wrongdoing, but merely an accusation?
2. Do you understand what the defendant is charged with and do you understand generally the nature of the charge?
3. Do you understand that the defendant has entered pleas of not guilty, and you, the jury, will determine the facts
of this case, guilt or innocence?
4. Would you be biased or prejudiced,
one way or other, because of the nature of the offense?
5. Do you understand
that the defendant is presumed to be innocent?
6. Do you understand
that the defendant need not present any testimony in this case?
7. Do you understand
that the defendant need not establish his innocence?
8. Do you understand
that the government has a duty and a responsibility to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt?
9. Should the defendant not testify, do you understand that you cannot presume or guess what he might have testified
to, or why he is not testifying, and that cannot even be a consideration in your deliberation?
10. Do you understand that the defendant is presumed to be innocent and that is a strong presumption in the law?
11. Do you understand that one side might have more witnesses than the other, and that you cannot determine the facts
of this case merely on the number of the witnesses?
12. Do you understand
that as the trier of the facts, you will determine the credibility of the witnesses --the witnesses that you care to believe
or disbelieve under the Court's instructions?
13. Do you understand
that what I tell you -- my words -- are not evidence, and the words of the attorneys are not evidence?
14. Do you understand that the evidence will come from the witness stand, or the exhibits you are allowed to see?
15. Have you ever been employed by local, state, or federal government? If so, in what capacity, and for how long?
16. Do you have any friends or relatives who are employed or otherwise connected with any local, state or federal law
enforcement agency?
17. Do you now receive money, or in the future expect to receive
money, from the federal government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, pensions, disability benefits and the like?
18. Do you understand that simply because an investigation has been conducted by the Internal Revenue and the defendant
has been charged and brought to trial that it does not necessarily follow that he is guilty of anything?
19. Have you formed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant based upon information obtained through
television, newspapers, or governmental reports concerning persons who have been charged with having failed to make tax returns
or attempting to evade income tax?
20. Do you understand that you
alone will be the judge of the facts, and if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant willfully violated the
law, you must find him not guilty?
21. If after you have heard all
the evidence, should you then find that the defendant acted or failed to act as charged in the indictment, but you do NOT
believe that the defendant willfully did so, would you have any difficulty in giving
him the benefit of the doubt and voting "not guilty?"
22. The Constitution of the United States, and those federal laws made in accordance with it, are the supreme law of
the land. Would you be able to follow this law as the court instructs you even if you personally disagree with it, and
even if it requires you to find the defendant not guilty?
23. Would any of you
give any more weight or give less weight to the testimony of people connected with the government or Internal Revenue Service
merely because they are from the Internal Revenue Service or a government agency?
24. Would you give a witness more weight because he or she is a government witness?
25. Would you judge the credibility of all witnesses by the same standard no matter for whom they might work?
26. If I were to require you to vote at this time whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, do you understand,
your vote would have to be "not guilty," because the defendant is presumed to be innocent?
27. Have any of you ever worked for the Internal Revenue Service in any capacity or in any tax-gathering agency of the
state or other government?
28. Have any of you ever had contact with the Internal Revenue Service
in the nature of follow-ups to your returns? If so, is there anything about your experience that would make you biased
or prejudiced one way or the other in this case?
29. Do you agree with
the Court's statement that in the event that your income tax returns or lack of income returns are questioned by the Internal
Revenue Service, that you have the right to question the IRS' position?
30. Do you understand that you have a right to question IRS handling of a matter according to procedure and automatically
you cannot consider someone guilty of wrongdoing merely because he questions the IRS on the way something has been handled?
31. Do you understand that every citizen has a right to challenge a position taken by the Internal Revenue Service with
respect to taxes, and a right to take
advantage of all exemptions
and tax credits which have been provided by law?
32. Have you had exposure
to the tax laws or the field of taxation or studied the income tax laws or their interpretation in academic courses or otherwise?
33. Do you agree with the proposition that there is nothing illegal about a person's endeavoring to reduce taxes?
34. Do you understand that the statutes or regulations might be subject to different interpretations?
35. Do you understand that there are many tax laws, and there is a question of interpretation at times, and there very
well can be a difference of opinion as to the interpretation?
36. Are you prejudiced
toward persons who have been labeled by the Internal Revenue Service as "tax protesters?"
37. Do you understand that any person has the right to study the laws of the United States and do you believe in this
right?
38. Do you understand that because a person interprets the tax law
different from someone from the IRS doesn't necessarily mean that person is guilty of any criminal offense?
39. Do you understand and believe that irrespective of what the IRS may think or say, the validity of a legal interpretation
of a tax law cannot be legally determined until tested in a court of law such as this federal court?
40. Are you able and willing to analyze the tax laws upon which the defendant relied in order to understand the position
of the defendant in this case?
41. If the evidence showed that
the defendant had not filed tax returns, would you assume that the defendant intended to violate the law as charged, or would
you be open minded and listen to the evidence bearing on why he failed to make those tax returns?
42. Do you agree with the proposition that a taxpayer has the legal right to decrease the amount of the tax incident
to be paid according to legal means, and that those legal means might be subject to interpretation and difference of opinion,
and would you follow the Court's instruction in that regard?
43. Do you agree with
the proposition that taxpayers may challenge the IRS interpretation of the income tax laws and there is nothing illegal or
improper?
44. Would you give any more weight to the testimony of someone connected
with law enforcement should they testify in this case than anyone else, merely because of their position?
45. Have any of you done any extensive reading or study about recent public debate in Congress or in the Executive branch
of government dealing with revisions or criticism of the income tax laws?
46. Have any of you ever attended any type of meetings concerning, or made any study of ideas and methods of, changing
the income tax laws?
As you can see, there are many questions that you can ask. The above
questions are designed to be a sample. Good luck and win your case!
