Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Stegman

United States District Court, D. Kansas

December 18, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
KATHLEEN STEGMAN, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JULIE A. ROBINSON, District Judge.

Defendant Kathleen Stegman filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment Due to Duplicity and Multiplicity Or to Compel the United States to Elect Between the Multiplicitous Counts (Doc. 15), to which the Government has filed a written response. On December 8, 2014, the Court heard oral argument on this motion, and the Court now concludes that the motion should be denied.

Summary of the Indictment

The Indictment charges defendant Kathleen Stegman and co-defendant Christopher Smith with various tax violations.

Count 1 charges Stegman with "Tax Evasion, 2008" and alleges that from on or about January 1, 2008 through October 16, 2009, she willfully attempted to evade corporate income tax due and owing for calendar year 2008, by committing affirmative acts of evasion, including six acts of evasion itemized in Count 1.

Count 2 charges Stegman with "Tax Evasion, 2009" and alleges that from on or about January 1, 2009 through September 15, 2010, she willfully attempted to evade corporate income tax due and owing for calendar year 2009, by committing affirmative acts of evasion, including six acts of evasion itemized in Count 2.

Count 3 charges Stegman with "Tax Evasion, 2010" and alleges that from on or about January 1, 2010 through September 19, 2011, she willfully attempted to evade corporate income tax due and owing for calendar year 2010, by committing affirmative acts of evasion, including six acts of evasion itemized in Count 3.

Count 4 charges Stegman with "Tax Evasion, 2007" and alleges that from on or about January 1, 2007 through May 26, 2009, she willfully attempted to evade personal income tax due and owing for calendar year 2007, by committing affirmative acts of evasion, including six acts of evasion itemized in Count 4.

Count 5 charges Stegman with "Tax Evasion, 2008" and alleges that from on or about January 1, 2008 through October 19, 2011, she willfully attempted to evade personal income tax due and owing for calendar year 2008, by committing affirmative acts of evasion, including six acts of evasion itemized in Count 5.

Finally, Count 6 charges Stegman and Smith with a so-called "Klein conspiracy, " that is, conspiracy to defraud the United States and defeat the lawful government functions of the Internal Revenue Service, beginning in or about December 2010, with the objectives of evading the payment of both corporate and personal taxes, defrauding the United States, and obstructing and impeding the lawful functions of the I.R.S.

Numbered paragraphs 1-10 of the Indictment are prefatory, and labeled "Introduction." Each of Counts 1-6 incorporate these ten prefatory paragraphs by reference.

Defendant's argument that the Indictment is duplicitous and multiplicitous

Defendant's motion to dismiss the Indictment for duplicity and multiplicity is based on corollary arguments. Because Count 2 incorporates the paragraphs comprising Count 1, and because each successive count incorporates the paragraphs comprising the preceding counts, Defendant argues that the Indictment is both duplicitous and multiplicitous. She argues that it is duplicitous because in Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, she is charged with the same crime that she is charged with in Count 1, because these counts incorporate the paragraphs comprising Count 1. Similarly, Defendant argues that in Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6, she is charged with the same crime that she is charged with in Count 2, since Counts 3-6 incorporate by reference the paragraphs comprising Count 2. In the same vein, Defendant argues that Counts 4, 5, and 6 are duplicitous in charging her with crimes charged in the preceding counts. Defendant argues that the indictment is also multiplicitous, for it ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.