Capone’s home with Capone's money, and later it was
transferred to the name of the defendant's wife.
was cash with Capone. The witness Ryder from Miami
told you of the thousand dollar bill wrappers he saw
lying around the Palm Island estate and said that Western Union boys were arriving every half hour.
told the revenue agents that he would consult with
Capone about his tax liability. Then he consulted with Capone and
the agents. His client was willing to co-operate with the Government,
but did not
want anything he said to be used against him for criminal prosecution.
He was told
by Agent Wilson that the revenue agents office had
nothing to do, with criminal prosecution, could extend no immunity. The
taxpayer could talk if he pleased, but he did so at his own peril.
Mattingly decided to bring Capone in. Capone was present at
this conference and heard what was said. If Mattingly overstepped his
under his power of attorney from Capone, Capone had a chance to speak.
he had not received a fair warning against incriminating statements
this time he was certainly warned.
told him that any statements that could be used
against him probably would be used. He didn't say they might be; he
would. But when Mr, Herrick asked whether, according to the defendant's
statements, the taxable
years in question would be 1926 to 1929, inclusive,
Capone himself spoke up. "That’s it, exactly," he said. That was the
most significant thing about the interview--Capone's own admission of
gentlemen of the jury, entertain any serious doubt that
Capone knew what this was about? He was there. He had a liability. He
willing to pay and he had the money. Even though he had lost from
$47,000 to $110,000 a
year on the races, as the defense has shown us, and
his expenditures for luxuries had been, enormous, as we have shown, he
had the money and wanted to pay his taxes. Is it conceivable, then,
that he had
no taxable income?
September 30th, 1930, Mattingly brought in the letter.
He had consulted with Capone and this was the best they could do - an
of taxable income of $26,000 for 1926, $40,000 for 1927 and $100,QOO
each for the
years 1928 and 1929.
tried to get the revenue agents to say that the admission
would not be used against his client; now, in the letter, Mattingly is
it himself. The letter says, "This
statement is made without prejudice to the taxpayer
in any criminal action that may be instituted against him."
speeder, when stopped by an officer, should say;
"I am telling you this without prejudice, officer; I don't want it used
against me; but I was going 50 miles an hour."
gambler could tack a little sign on a roulette, “This
device is not to be used as evidence against me.” Suppose a
murderer could put a sign on his gun, "This
weapon is not to be used as evidence against me."
refuge for criminals that would be! And yet, that is what
we have here, "I am telling you this, but it is not to be used against
always had a roll of
one-hundred-dollar and five-hundred-dollar bills-a roll "big enough to
ox," as one witness testified. Yet when
we tried to get from him an idea of his income, we had no help whatever
him. Why, when we asked him if he went under any name other than
said, "Oh, no"; yet in the evidence it developed that he went under the
of Ross and Costa....
of his witnesses said he lost
$110,000 on the races in 1929. He lost all the way from $40,000 to
with different gamblers. He bought jewelry in vast amounts for his
bought expensive motor cars, and he lived on a lavish scale. Even if he
lose heavily on the races and spent money in other ways, he still had
anybody think that this man did not have a huge income? Why, the idea is ridiculous. Even a child would
know better: He had an income that
called for his paying to the government a substantial income tax....