Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Peter Lizotte
Citations: 856 F.2d 341; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11862; 1988 WL 90310Docket: 87-1870
Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; September 1, 1988; Federal Appellate Court
Peter Lizotte appeals his conviction on two counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in revenue collection, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Lizotte, a Massachusetts attorney, was implicated through his dealings with clients involved in drug trafficking, specifically Dwight P. Sackett and Michael Tomlinson. In 1984, Sackett, a cocaine dealer, confided in Lizotte about large amounts of cash he couldn't legally explain. Lizotte assisted Sackett in concealing this cash through various schemes, including the purchase of property with a misrepresented deed and advising on how to create a cover for cash transactions. Notably, Lizotte recorded a property deed that falsely stated the transaction price and facilitated a reimbursement scheme involving forged signatures. In a second conspiracy charge, Lizotte was involved with Tomlinson, another drug dealer. Witnesses testified that Lizotte helped Tomlinson set up investments that obscured his ownership and advised on a trust referred to as "a drug dealer's trust." An undercover FBI agent also testified that Lizotte offered investment advice on laundering cash. On appeal, Lizotte contested jury instructions regarding willful blindness, arguing that the evidence did not support a finding of such ignorance. However, the court maintained that the jury could reasonably infer Lizotte’s knowledge and intent based on the testimony presented. Lizotte argues that the jury instructions were unfair, allowing the jury to convict him based on evidence that did not establish his guilt while simultaneously suggesting Sackett was lying. He claims that the jury could disbelieve certain witnesses, like Laurie Tomlinson, regarding Lizotte's knowledge of business dealings but still convict based on other evidence. Citing United States v. Picciandra, Lizotte contends that a "willful blindness" instruction is only appropriate when a defendant claims ignorance and the circumstances indicate deliberate ignorance. However, the court counters that a jury can partially credit a witness's testimony and that evidence could support the inference of Lizotte avoiding obvious wrongdoing. The instructions, spanning 20 pages, fairly presented the case and allowed the jury to evaluate Lizotte's claims. Additionally, Lizotte objects to a jury instruction discussing a conversation with Butchka about investments lacking profit potential, asserting it improperly suggested criminal intent. The court finds this objection unfounded, stating that the judge's comments appropriately directed the jury's attention to relevant evidence without infringing on their role. The conversation's context, where Butchka revealed large cash amounts and Lizotte suggested using a legitimate business to manage that money, was pertinent to assessing Lizotte's intent. Lastly, Lizotte contests the admissibility of Sackett's 1985 calendar, which recorded drug sales. The court holds that Sackett's 1984 calendar entries were admissible as business records and that transferring these records did not undermine their credibility. The appellate court affirms the lower court's decisions.