October’s “Shop Talk” column in the Journal of Taxation has an interesting item on U.S. v. Rutherford, 371 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit vacated a married couple’s tax evasion conviction on the ground that

the jury was prejudiced because a large number of IRS and government agents sat directly behind the prosecution table throughout the trial and glared at the jurors, intimidating them, and causing some of the jurors to fear that if they acquitted the [couple], the IRS might retaliate against them.

Shop Talk notes:

What are the lessons of Rutherford? If Johnny Cochran were the Rutherfords’ attorney, he might close his argument … [with] “If the IRS agents glare, the trial’s not fair.”

How does a prosecutor determine whether a prospective juror will be overly sensitive to alleged “glaring” by IRS agents? … Should [the IRS agents] look up at the ceiling, or wear sunglasses, to dispel the perception of glaring? Would the glare of the courtrom lights bouncing off the agents’ sunglasses (think Will Smith in Men in Black) itself be deemed to constitute impermissible glaring by the IRS? In order to avoid the aura of intimidation, would it be better for the IRS agents not to be dressed as “Men in Black” but perhaps in chartreuse or paisley?