Lawyers for Anthony and Harriet Jinwright have been given additional time -- until Aug. 29 -- to file opening briefs in the couple’s appeal of their tax-evasion convictions.

The Fourth Circuit court in Richmond had set an original deadline of June 13. But citing the voluminous transcripts and the numerous pieces of evidence associated with the 19-day trial, lawyers for the Jinwrights first requested and received an extension until July 28. That date earlier this month was extended until late August.

In seeking the latest extension, the lawyers cited more than 7,000 pages of transcripts and 800 government exhibits.

According to an IRS agent who testified at the Jinwrights' sentencing hearing, the former co-pastors of Greater Salem Church in west Charlotte failed to report more than $2.3 million in income between 1991 and 2008. Witnesses testified that the couple received luxury cars, expensive trips and “love offerings” from Greater Salem and sometimes took cash home in bags.

Anthony Jinwright was sentenced to eight years and nine months in federal prison; his wife received six years and eight months. Both were assigned to prisons in West Virginia.

In a last-ditch bid to forestall Harriet Jinwright’s reporting to prison, her lawyers in April suggested that they would pursue two possible legal arguments during her appeal:

1. They allege that trial Judge Frank Whitney erred when he instructed the jury that any and all money received by the Jinwrights from Greater Salem was “taxable income” as a “matter of law.”

2. They also allege that Whitney violated the “church autonomy doctrine” under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when he allowed testimony relating to how Greater Salem was governed under the Jinwrights.

Harriet Jinwright’s lawyers said those issues alone “are likely to result in a reversal of Mrs. Jinwright’s convictions and an order granting her a new trial.”

As for the argument relating to taxable income, her lawyers said Whitney repeatedly gave jurors the following instruction:

…payments by an employer to an employee, or on the employee’s behalf as reimbursements for business related expenditures, must be included in gross income of the employee unless the expenses are ordinary and necessary business expenses, the business nature of the expenses has been substantiated, and any unsubstantiated payments have been returned to the employer.

By issuing that instruction, her lawyers have argued, Whitney “misstated the law, relieved the government of its burden of proof, and shifted the burden of proof" to Harriet Jinwright to prove that reimbursement checks from Greater Salem were for necessary business expenses.

Jinwright’s lawyers further argued that Whitney erred when he allowed witnesses to testify concerning:

• how Greater Salem members decided to give gifts;
• the method and manner in which Greater Salem collected donations from its members;
• Greater Salem’s financial reports, minutes of board meetings and various other unrelated financial dealings of Greater Salem to determine whether the church was run properly under the Jinwrights’ leadership.

“For three...weeks the government called disgruntled former church members and employees to discuss how badly the Jinwrights ran the church, how much debt the church was in and how unfair the witness felt their respective salaries were…,” the lawyers wrote.

The lawyers continued:

“The district court’s allowing evidence concerning the internal governance of Greater Salem Church was irrelevant to the question of whether the Jinwrights had violated tax laws in filing their personal tax returns; but even worse, it allowed the government to make a trial issue of the propriety of Greater Salem Church’s governance and its manner of determining the compensation of its Clergy. This evidence had no legitimate role in determining Mrs. Jinwright’s guilt of tax evasion offenses.

“…This is precisely what the government was allowed to do during the trial, and the jury undoubtedly was swayed by that evidence, designed to persuade the jury that the Jinwrights were cheating their church, during its deliberations. The government delved into church governance in an attempt to show that the Jinwrights’ salaries and other payments from Greater Salem Church were not authorized by any governing body.

“…But exploring that issue, particularly in a case where the Jinwrights were not charged with victimizing the church or its members, violates those principles barring government entanglement with religion…

…”Having the jury scrutinize the religious activities of the Greater Salem Church offended the fundamental fairness of the trial.”

Got news to share with Qcity readers? Email us at editor@qcitymetro.com.
Sign up for our weekly email newsletter below

Sign up for our Weekly Email Newsletter Email: For Email Marketing you can trust

Other Ways to Share Twitter Del.icio.us MySpace

Discussions and Submission Agreement