Bronston v. United States , 409 U.S. 352 (1973), is a United States Supreme Court decision that strictly interprets the federal law of perjury. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger wrote for a unanimous Trial that responses to questions made under oath that convey the correct information within and about themselves but are intended to mislead or avoid the examiner can not be prosecuted. In contrast, the criminal justice system must rely on more careful follow-up questions.
The decision has been cited in many cases since then and has become a legal standard of false investigation in federal jurisprudence. It was run during Bill Clinton's impeachment process in 1998 as a defense against false allegations against him.
It has long been criticized for the loopholes created in copyright law as essentially allowing a witness to lie without consequence. Nevertheless, the Court refused to refuse or limit it even though there was some movement in that direction by the lower court.
Video Bronston v. United States
Latar belakang casing
Samuel Bronston is a New York-based film producer who, between 1959 and 1964, made films in various European countries such as Samuel Bronston Productions, Inc., a wholly owned company. He is a pioneer in using countries like Spain to take advantage of lower production costs. As part of its business operations, the company manages the bank account in the countries where it does business - 37 separate accounts in five different countries, it will be determined later.
In 1964, after the epic Fall of the Roman Empire failed, the company filed for federal bankruptcy protection. Two years later, the owner was questioned under oath at a creditor committee meeting on the company's overseas assets. This includes the following exchange between Bronston and one of the lawyers for his creditors:
Q. Do you have a bank account in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever?
A. The company has an account there for about six months, at ZÃÆ'¼rich.
Q. Do you have a nomination with a bank account at a Swiss bank? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever?
A. No, sir.
All the answers are true, although the second answer is not a direct answer to that question. It was later discovered that Bronston had personally owned an account with International Credit Bank in Geneva, where he made deposits and withdrew checks of up to $ 180,000 over five years in which the company was active and closed shortly before filing for bankruptcy. As a result, the matter was called federal prosecutors, who secured false allegations of charges against Bronston.
Trial
The Government is of the opinion that Bronston deliberately answered the second question of the series of questions by referring to a company account in Zurich rather than his own, as alleged by the questioner, leaving the impression that he did not have and never had an account in Switzerland, which was not true. The jury is instructed that they should consider the state of the witness's mind, that if they find that Bronston "fully understands the question asked to him but still gives the wrong answer knowing the same thing wrong", they should punish him. After seven hours of consideration, where they requested not only additional instructions but that the original instructions were read back to them, as well as reviewing some evidence in the case, they restored confidence.
Appeal
When appealing, Bronston claims that his key question is inappropriate and that he should not be punished for making a correct and accurate answer. A divided court affirms beliefs on the grounds that "an answer containing half the truth which is also a lie by negative implications, when the answer is deliberately given in lieu of the responsive answer required by the right question, is a false oath".
The presiding judge, J. Edward Lumbard, disagreed, arguing that the proper remedy for such an answer was "the sharpness of the questioner." Bronston's lawyer filed the certiorari from the Supreme Court, and got it in 1971.
Maps Bronston v. United States
Decision
The Court heard the argument on November 15, 1972. Sheldon Elsen argued for Bronston, with Andrew Frey taking the side of the federal government.
Less than two months later, the Court issued its short decision, unanimously on the side of the applicant. While he acknowledges that Bronston's answer may be intended to be misleading, Burger feels it will far surpass the intentions of Congress to enact a broad legislation. He regarded Bronston's answer as "a testimony accident that can easily be reached by one additional question with a lawyer alert - because every examiner should - with an unresponsive answer discrepancy from the applicant", a point he repeats several times throughout the opinion. Such an application is also contrary to the literal words of the law, which defines false oaths as deliberately declaring under oath material material that the witness does not believe is true.
A casual listener might believe from Bronston's answer that he himself never had a Swiss bank account, he agreed. "But we do not deal with casual conversation and the law does not make it a criminal act for witnesses to deliberately proclaim material issues that imply material matters that he does not believe to be true" because the intention to mislead or dodge may not be a fundamental reason: "Below pressure and interrogation tension, it is not uncommon for the most serious witness to give an answer that is not completely responsive.Sometimes the witness does not understand the question, or may be too cautious or worried, reading too much or too little. "
Witnesses, he understands, may also be reluctant to talk about personal embarrassing matters, especially in bankruptcy. "If a witness dodges, it is the responsibility of the lawyer to recognize avoidance and bring witnesses back to the target, to clear the whole truth with enemy's test kits." The finding of a jury trial that Bronston intended to mislead was of no consequence, and it should not be a permit they were allowed to make:
The jury should not be allowed to be involved in the assessment of whether an unresponsive, correct and complete answer on his face, is intended to mislead or divert the examiner; The state of the witness's mind is only relevant as far as it is borne on whether "he does not believe [the answer] to be true." Holding it is by injecting new and confusing elements into the enemy witness system we know. Witnesses are unsure of the extent of their responsibility for misunderstanding and insufficiency of examiners, and may be afraid of having responsibilities tested by the jury under an unclear rubric of "intent to mislead" or "perjury with implications."
He reviews the history of perjury, and remember that when it first begins to be prosecuted, the authorities realize it should be narrowly interpreted, otherwise people will be spared from testfying for fear of being sued themselves. Existing case law supports that position as well.
"The exact question is very important as a predicate for a false oath," he said, for the last time, a sentence often quoted since.
Legacy
The standard set by the law has become known in the criminal law as a rule of "literal truth" (the "contrast" rule that requires a false oath indictment to establish the difference between a presumed false testimony and the true truth often associated with the case but appearing in the final appeal decision ). For many years since it was inherited, Bronston remained, in the words of a commentator, "much slandered". Critics have ranged from prosecutors angry at the limitations placed on their ability to use the threat of false oath prosecution to force the true testimony of hostile witnesses to a Wake Forest professor who cites it as one aspect of the legal system that has led to a general decline in morality when they is widely applied outside of legal practice.
Bronston never succeeded in producing the film afterwards, only succeeding in making the 1984 film Fort Saganne , a French film directed by Alain Corneau. He died ten years later.
Clinton impeachment defense
The case came to light in 1998, when Bill Clinton's lawyers asked him in defense of the false oath filed by the House of Representatives during his impeachment. They argue that lawyers for Paula Jones fail to follow up on the questions that Clinton asks generally if he's ever alone with Monica Lewinsky that he answers "I do not remember". Although later the testimony had determined that he was alone with him on several short occasions, he did not specifically deny it and that the failure of Jones' attorneys to ask further questions about certain events precluded prosecution was as exact as Bronston's failure to question. They also quote another chance in which Clinton also claims that he does not remember, and his pens leave only the answer. The allegedly false presidential testimony, to them, "is just a confusing deposition record that could have been clarified simultaneously".
In response, the House impeachment manager Steve Chabot called the resort "Bronston" the "presidential defense base" and "legal smoke screen" when filing the case to the Senate. Clinton, he said, can remember well things he claimed he did not do. "[T] he noted his stance", Chabot told the senators, "that the President repeatedly lied, he was repeatedly deceived, he repeatedly pretended to forget."
In 2004, Loyola professor Peter Tiersma, who specializes in language and law, analyzed Clinton's alleged kidnapping under the Bronston standards and concluded that when he did not break the law, he might be aware of its literal meaning. Standards-honesty of his own time as a law professor and of course exploit him to mislead his pen. They are mistaken, he said, in discovering the definition of their own sexual relationship, allowing Clinton to seek ambiguity and then take advantage of them in the pulpit.
Appeal case appeal
As with other Supreme Court cases, those who disagree with Bronston have searched for test cases that may grant other Supreme Court judges a chance to review the original verdict and, if not exclude it, at least limit the space the scope. Two such cases that reached the federal appellate court raised hopes (or fears) with respect to the Bronston, but did not make it through that level.
United States v. Robbins
Like Bronston , this 1988 case arose from the bankruptcy process. Robbins is giving testimony about a company he formed named MacArthur and 11th Properties. The asker mistakenly asked about "11th and Meridian". He replied that the name was unfamiliar but he knew about "11 and MacArthur". Both answers are true but as a result the question line about the actual company is dropped.
The Eighth Circuit upholds his beliefs five years later on the grounds that "[a] fundamental underlying ambiguity or inaccuracy in interrogation, the meaning and truth of the declarative answer is for the jury." The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Law commentator Barry Tarlow distinguishes this case from Bronston, however, noting that in this case the defendant is more actively misleading the questioner by volunteering the name of a different but equally false version of the company.
United States v. DeZarn
Then in the 1990s came the case of DeZarn. It begins with a possible investigation into a violation of the Hatch Act by officers of the Kentucky National Guard. The key to the case was the 1990 Preakness Day party attended by Robert DeZarn, who was later appointed general aide by Brereton Jones after being elected governor. DeZarn was being questioned about the party by Colonel Robert Tripp of the Army Inspector General's office, under oath, when he was mistakenly asked about the 1991 party, which was not at issue. He testified honestly about it. As a result, the researchers released a report that the allegations were not proven.
Following the report, another Guard officer came to Tripp and his colleagues with new information justifying some of the charges, and revealed to them the role of DeZarn in 1990. He was indicted on false oaths allegations in 1996. His lawyer was unsuccessful in trying to get the indictment denied arguing that the answer is completely honest. The district court refused to do so because other witnesses had answered questions about the 1991 party with reference to 1990, and that the other DeZarn's answer had shown him to know which side was at issue.
He repeated this defense in court, while prosecutors introduced articles suggesting he knew exactly which side the researchers were concerned about. In September he was convicted, and sentenced to 15 months in prison. After the motion for a directed verdict failed, he appealed.
In 1998, the Sixth Circuit Panel upheld the conviction (as well as its phrase, which he claimed was not perfected correctly). Gerald Rosen, Chief Justice for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sits by name, DeZarn's answer is distinguished from the issue at Bronston, noting that DeZarn is not only aware of the party in question, but unlike Bronston , DeZarn's answer is "assertive and direct and fully responsive". Rosen also points to the next answer that only makes sense if DeZarn refers to the 1991 party. DeZarn has also tried to debate Robbins irrelevant, because in that case the defendant has introduced the error, but Judge Rosen notes that the facts do not play role in the verdict there.
The case never appealed beyond the Sixth Circuit. Commentators have praised Dezarn as "nudg [ing] a federal criminal law that is closer to everyday morality" or reproaches it because it requires a witness to guess what a questioner really >. "DeZarn's decision seems to put the witness in danger - if he is subjectively misinterpreted the state of the interrogator's mind and gave the literal answer literally," Barry Tarlow wrote. "The extension of the traditional definition of perjury is unwise and unnecessary."
See also
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 409
References
External links
- 409 U.S. 352 (1973) Text decisions at findlaw.com
- Case of Struggle - Special Issues and Defense - Avoid and Unresponsive Answers from the US Department of Criminal Manual.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments