The Words of the Durst Family
|
|
The Words of the Durst Family |
On November 30, a 75-page appellate brief was filed on behalf of Father with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking reversal of his conviction, enter of a directed judgment of acquittal, and, among other things, a hearing on his claim that he was selected for prosecution because of his religion an nationality. The briefs principal author, Laurence H. Tribe, the Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard University, will argue the appeal orally in January.
1. The government's veto of bench trial abridged his freedom of speech.
2. The judge's denial of bench trial violated his right to a fair trial.
A. Before the voir dire (jury selection process) there was unacceptable risk that a fair jury could not be selected.
B. The voir dire tried to produce a fair jury.
C. The nature of the evidence exacerbated the unfairness of the trial before this jury.
1. Trial by religious innuendo.
2. Trial by mesmerizing complexity.
3. The trial court's misconstruction of the Court Interpreter's Act of 1978 impermissibly burdened defendant's right to decide whether to testify.
4. The court's instructions to the jury were fatally defective.
A. They misstated the Law of Trusts.
B. They unconstitutionally shifted to the defendant the burden of proof on the issue of beneficial ownership.
C. They violated the religion clauses of the First Amendment.
1. The jury was empowered to decide, on whatever basis they wished, whether expenditures were religious.
2. The jury was invited to draw adverse inferences from the Unification Church's organizational structure.
3. The jury was not asked to consider the religious identity and intentions of the donors or Rev. Moon's religious position and role.
4. The instructions on the element of willfulness were erroneous.
5. A directed acquittal was required as a matter of law.
A. The substantive tax offense.
1. The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the allegedly false statements on Rev. Moon's income tax returns were, in fact, false.
a. Evidence of the use of Rev. Moon's name
b. Evidence of Rev. Moon's use of assets.
c. Evidence that the international Unification Church movement did not exist as an entity.
d. Evidence of a "cover-up."
2. The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the allegedly false statements on Rev. Moon's tax returns were willfully made.
a. The specifications regarding false income.
b. The false source specification.
B. The conspiracy count.
1. The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that Rev. Moon engaged in a conspiracy to file false statements on his income tax returns.
2. The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that Rev. Moon participated in a cover-up conspiracy, especially in light of the principle of strictissimi juris.
3. Insufficient evidence on either object of the conspiracy requires reversal and new trial on the other.
C. Insufficient evidence either on the substantive counts or of the conspiracy count requires reversal on the sufficient count(s).
1. Effect of dismissal of conspiracy count against Rev. Moon.
2. Effect of dismissal of substantive counts against Rev. Moon.
6. The Trial Court erred in admitting certain immigration documents and related testimony as "similar acts" evidence.
7. Rev. Moon's claim of selective prosecution required inquiry.
8. The post-trial inquiry into [deleted to comply with court gag order.]
9. The Trial Court's sweepingly broad gag order abridged freedom of speech.