## Facts

- Blayde Lynn Crockett promoted “trust” arrangements designed to reduce or avoid federal income taxes.
- From roughly 1993–1997, he worked with the Reed family and their closely held corporation, Nuway, Inc., a business providing catering and shower services to U.S. Forest Service firefighters.
- Crockett advised the Reeds to convert their corporation into a “business trust” and helped create Nuway Management Trust and multiple subordinate trusts.
- The government presented evidence that the trust structure diverted corporate income, treated personal expenses as trust expenses, and understated taxable income on federal tax returns.
- Crockett was indicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States (IRS), 18 U.S.C. § 371, and three counts of aiding and assisting the preparation of false tax returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).
- At trial, Crockett testified that he would never advise or help anyone evade tax obligations.
- On cross-examination, over objection, the government questioned Crockett about his failure to file his own federal income tax returns for multiple years (1992–1998).
- A jury convicted Crockett on all counts; the district court denied his post-verdict acquittal motion and imposed a 70-month sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing cross-examination about Crockett’s personal failure to file tax returns after his broad direct testimony about not helping anyone evade taxes.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and the aiding-and-assisting convictions under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).
3. Whether exclusion of certain defense evidence warranted reversal where the defense did not make adequate offers of proof.
4. Whether due process required a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence for judicial factfinding supporting Guideline enhancements.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed Crockett’s convictions and 70-month sentence.
- The court held the cross-examination about Crockett’s nonfiling was permissible because it was reasonably related to his direct testimony and probative of credibility and intent.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Crockett joined an agreement to impede the IRS and aided preparation of materially false returns.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged evidentiary rulings, including exclusions where the defense failed to preserve issues through adequate offers of proof.
- The court rejected the sentencing challenge, holding the ordinary preponderance standard applied and the case was not so exceptional as to require a higher burden of proof.

## Legal Principles

- When a defendant testifies broadly to lawful intent or compliance, the government may cross-examine on specific conduct that directly contradicts that testimony and bears on credibility and intent, so long as it is reasonably related to the direct examination.
- Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the government; the verdict stands if a rational juror could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- To preserve error in excluding evidence, a party must make an adequate offer of proof; merely describing anticipated testimony is generally insufficient.
- In the advisory-Guidelines era, judicial factfinding for sentencing enhancements ordinarily may be made by a preponderance of the evidence; a higher standard is not required absent an extraordinary case raising due process concerns.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed because Crockett’s sweeping direct testimony opened the door to impeachment by his own tax nonfiling, the trial record supported the conspiracy and false-return convictions, evidentiary challenges were unpreserved or nonprejudicial, and the district court permissibly applied the preponderance standard to sentencing factfinding.


United States v. Crockett, 435 F.3d 1305 (10th Cir. 2006)