« Update: Smoke inhalation caused East Side man's death | Today | Computer records a sticking point in smokeshop case »

February 1, 2008

Update: Appeals court upholds Hatch's tax conviction

BOSTON -- A federal appeals court has upheld the tax evasion conviction of "Survivor" reality TV star Richard Hatch of Newport, who was convicted in 2006 for not paying taxes on more than $1 million he got as winner of the blockbuster show's first season.

Hatch was sentenced on May 16, 2006, to 51 months in prison -- a sentence the appeals court decision upholds -- after a jury found him guilty of tax evasion and filing a false return for not reporting to the IRS the winnings and other income earned.

His lawyer appeared before the appeals court in March 2007 to have the conviction overturned, asserting the trial judge prevented him from asking about alleged cheating on the show that Hatch said prompted him to confront the producers -- discussions that led Hatch to think CBS would pay his taxes if he won the jackpot.

The lawyer argued the jury wouldn’t believe there was a deal to pay Hatch's taxes without hearing about the alleged cheating that led to it.

But in its ruling made public today, the three-judge First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston rejected Hatch's appeal, in which he made several arguments in claiming the show's producers were to have paid his taxes.

The ruling said that the U.S. District Court in Providence was "well within its discretion to insist" Hatch "first supply specific evidence" of what "Survivor" show creater Mark Burnett "or others actually said that might have led Hatch to believe" the show's production company would pay the taxes.

And the ruling says District Court several times gave the defense lawyer "full opportunity" to elicit from Hatch whether or not he was saying executives of "Survivor" had agreed to pay Hatch's taxes "and, if so, what it was he was told at the time."

But Hatch failed to present evidence that such conversations happened, which, the appeal courts says, "strongly suggested that no actual promises were made, and no such 'deal' actually existed."

-- projo.com staff writer Michael P. McKinney, with Journal archival reports

Posted by Mike McKinney  at 4:11 PM | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)