United States v. Smith
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
35 F.3d 344 (1994)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Sherry Lynn Smith (defendant) was questioned by a grand jury regarding her involvement with and knowledge of the criminal pursuits of her boyfriend, Craig Keltner. Smith participated in a scheme to avoid the reporting of a cash transaction greater than $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). She received $2,400 in cash and, in exchange, provided a $2,400 personal check so that Keltner could purchase a Corvette without triggering the IRS-reporting requirement. Smith initially testified that she helped Keltner pay for his car with money from her personal savings, not cash that Keltner had given to her. After a short break in the grand-jury proceeding, during which she reviewed her bank records, Smith recanted her statement about the source of the money used to help Keltner purchase the Corvette, admitting Keltner had given her $2,400. Smith conditionally pleaded guilty to a perjury charge after the district court denied her motion to dismiss it based on the recantation defense provided by 18 U.S.C. § 1623(d). The district court reasoned that Smith failed to satisfy the second condition for a recantation defense of subsection (d) and that both conditions must be satisfied. Smith appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bowman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.