context: However, given Walsh's testimony that he did not know when it first occurred to him that he should repay the money and the testimony of Senator Tson-gas and Frank Daly that they knew of no formal trip cancellation being communicated, a jury could reasonably have concluded that Walsh did not know in September 1984 that his retention of the funds was wrongful. Thus, the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the embezzlement count as a matter of law on statute of limitations grounds.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 865 F.2d 716, 716
citation_a.parenthetical: "[t]he determination of when willfulness manifests itself is a factual issue which must be determined by the jury"
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Sams, 865 F.2d at 716 (“[t]he determination of when willfulness manifests itself is a factual issue which must be determined by the jury”); cf. United States v. Andros, 484 F.2d 531, 532 (9th Cir.1973) (in a tax case of which willfulness is an essential element, the statute of limitations begins to run when the failure to pay became willful, not when the taxes were assessed).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 484 F.2d 531, 532
citation_b.parenthetical: in a tax case of which willfulness is an essential element, the statute of limitations begins to run when the failure to pay became willful, not when the taxes were assessed
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Sams, 865 F.2d at 716 (“[t]he determination of when willfulness manifests itself is a factual issue which must be determined by the jury”); cf. United States v. Andros, 484 F.2d 531, 532 (9th Cir.1973) (in a tax case of which willfulness is an essential element, the statute of limitations begins to run when the failure to pay became willful, not when the taxes were assessed).