To obtain a conviction on criminal tax charges, the government must prove the defendant acted “willfully.” In Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), the Supreme Court held that to satisfy this burden the government must “prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.” Over the past 30 years, defendants have sought to negate the government’s evidence of willfulness both through their own testimony and by presenting other evidence that they held a good faith belief that their conduct was lawful.

Courts have recognized that, where willfulness forms a critical component of the defense, defendants are entitled to wide latitude in introducing evidence showing their lack of criminal intent. See United States v. Garber, 607 F.2d 92, 99 (5th Cir. 1979). In practice, however, defendants have struggled to present expert testimony as part of a Cheek defense. This column analyzes recent Circuit Court decisions rejecting claims that defendants were improperly deprived of their ability to present a Cheek defense through expert testimony.

‘Cheek v. United States’

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]