## Facts

- A physician was investigated and prosecuted for underreporting income from his medical practice and filing false federal income tax returns.
- His wife assisted with practice bookkeeping and preparation of tax-related records, including tracking patient payments used to understate income.
- After marital conflict and separation, the wife contacted the IRS and provided information about the couple’s tax-reporting practices.
- In recorded and unrecorded interviews, an IRS agent declined to give Miranda warnings and indicated she would not be prosecuted if she was truthful and cooperative.
- At trial, the wife testified about communications with her husband concerning the underreporting scheme and their joint actions in preparing returns that understated tax liability.
- A jury convicted the defendant of three counts of attempted tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201) and one count of willfully subscribing to a false return (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)).

## Issues

1. Whether testimony about spousal communications during marriage was barred by the adverse spousal testimony privilege or the confidential marital communications privilege.
2. Whether the government committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose, or belatedly disclosing, impeachment or inducement evidence concerning the wife’s dealings with the IRS.
3. Whether the district court erred by admitting prior bad acts evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for attempted tax evasion and willful subscription to a false return.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions.
- The adverse spousal testimony privilege did not apply after the marriage ended, and the confidential marital communications privilege did not protect communications made in furtherance of spouses’ joint criminal activity.
- There was no reversible Brady error because the disputed material was not material to the verdict and/or was available in time for effective use at trial.
- The Rule 404(b) evidence was properly admitted for non-propensity purposes (including intent and knowledge), and the district court did not abuse its Rule 403 discretion.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Federal law recognizes distinct marital privileges: (1) adverse spousal testimony (held by the witness-spouse) and (2) confidential marital communications (protecting confidential communications made during a valid marriage).
- The confidential marital communications privilege does not apply to communications between spouses that further their joint participation in criminal activity (a joint-participants exception).
- Brady requires disclosure of favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment; nondisclosure warrants relief only when there is a reasonable probability of a different result.
- Rule 404(b) permits other-acts evidence for purposes such as intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake, subject to Rule 403 balancing against unfair prejudice.
- Appellate sufficiency review asks whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the prosecution’s favor.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the tax convictions, holding that spouse-to-spouse communications advancing a joint tax-evasion scheme were not privileged, and rejecting claims of Brady error, improper admission of other-acts evidence, and insufficient proof of willful tax offenses.


United States v. Marashi, 913 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1990)