A Baldwin County landowner testified in federal court in Mobile that a timber deal he struck with the husband of Mobile County License Commissioner Kim Hastie was meant to help the couple’s daughter, not the Hasties themselves, as prosecutors pressed forward on the second day of the couple’s tax evasion trial.
The landowner said he needed timber cleared from his property and turned to John Hastie, his distant relative, who worked for a forestry and land-clearing firm. Under the arrangement struck in December 2014, the firm agreed to purchase the wood, with a check for just over $5,000 written directly to the Hasties’ daughter rather than to the landowner. “I would have helped anyone if I could have, but I wasn’t helping them,” the landowner testified, referring to the couple’s ongoing legal troubles. “I was helping her.”
Prosecutors argued the arrangement was less about generosity and more about necessity, telling jurors the couple needed the cash infusion to avoid bouncing checks tied to a scholarship organization, a county revenue office and legal fees for Kim Hastie’s defense attorney. The payment, prosecutors said, was part of more than $58,000 in unreported income tied to land brokering and timber-clearing work that the couple failed to report to the IRS.
Several colleagues of John Hastie from the forestry firm testified in his defense, telling jurors it is common practice in the timber industry for payment to go to someone other than the landowner. One executive testified he authorized the check to the Hasties’ daughter and said it was not his place to question who received payment on a land deal.
An accountant testified that she filed an amended tax return for the Hasties earlier this year showing a previously unreported land-deal payment from several years earlier, after being contacted by John Hastie’s defense attorney, who also happened to be her client. She said the couple now owes back taxes to both state and federal authorities as a result.
Notably absent from the witness list was the Hasties’ daughter, whom prosecutors had earlier signaled they intended to call to testify but ultimately did not put on the stand.
The Mobile courtroom again drew a large crowd of the Hasties’ supporters, filling several rows of the gallery. Testimony grew tense at times, with attorneys sparring over witness credibility, and the judge intervened at one point to quiet the courtroom after commotion in the gallery interrupted proceedings. A juror was also dismissed earlier in the day after raising a personal conflict with the judge.
The trial, centered on allegations that the couple failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in income to the IRS, was expected to conclude with closing arguments the following day, after which the case would go to the jury.