Reality Stars Face Wary Court in Bid to Reverse Tax Convictions

Reality television stars Todd and Julie Chrisley received skeptical reactions from the Eleventh Circuit during oral arguments Friday when asking to be acquitted of tax evasion and conspiracy charges.

The Chrisleys, stars of the USA Network program “Chrisley Knows Best,” claim that federal officials knowingly used false testimony by an IRS revenue officer to support their case and failed to correct it at trial. The government’s actions adversely affected the jury’s June 2022 guilty verdict, and the district court improperly refused an evidentiary hearing on the issue, they say.

But the Chrisley’s evidence of government wrongdoing—a timeline outlined in their briefs—appeared to be “just pure speculation,” Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum, of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, said.

“You only have a hearing if you can show evidence, or some reason to believe, that there was a deliberate holding back of evidence,” Rosenbaum told the Chrisleys’ counsel, Alex Little of Burr & Forman LLP.

The government learning later of mistaken testimony doesn’t speak to any ill will at the time they relied upon it, Rosenbaum said.

Testimony Accuracy

The content of that allegedly mistaken testimony—whether the Chrisleys had paid their liabilities at the time of trial—is also immaterial to the outcome of the case, Assistant US Attorney Annalise Peters told the judges.

“You can’t unrob the bank,” Peters said, quoting her colleague’s closing argument from trial. “Later actions do not nullify the crime and here the evidence was overwhelming at trial that the Chrisleys had taken a number of steps to evade the IRS.”

Peters also denied that the government had coached the IRS officer to lie or testify misleadingly.

Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, apparently exasperated, questioned why the Chrisleys couldn’t have cross-examined that IRS witness using records of the stars’ tax payments in order to argue at the time that the testimony was false.

“A lot of her testimony, you’ll agree was based on records, all subject to the best evidence rule,” Marcus said. “Direct recess could have been asked for.”

The Chrisley’s accountant, Peter Tarantino, told the appeals court he was prejudiced by being tried alongside his clients. He asks the court to reverse his related conviction and remand for a new trial.

Tarantino was prejudiced by the Chrisley’s “vast wealth; prior crimes committed, bank fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud; by their failure to pay taxes for years” prior to his hiring, Tarantino’s counsel Donald Samuel, of Garland Samuel & Loeb PC, said. “All of that spilled over to affect Peter Tarantino’s defense.”

Judge Kevin C. Newsom also heard the case.

Weiner Law Group LLP, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, and Balch & Bingham LLP also represent the Chrisleys on appeal.

The case is United States v. Tarantino, 11th Cir., No. 22-14074, oral argument 4/19/24.