Opinion ID: 351988
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Siginete?

Text: 25 Q. Yes, that is a high stakes card game. 26 (1) A. Not necessarily, no. 27 Q. It isn't? 28 (2) A. I haven't seen any game of siginete. Every time I go in there, the doors are open. You can go in there anytime. I go in there and have coffee, watch TV like a lot of other people do. 29 Q. Isn't it true, Mr. Alberti, that there is a high stake siginete game that is in operation at that club almost twenty-four hours a day? 30 (3) A. I have never seen one. I have never seen one, sir. I don't recall ever seeing one. 31 The court found that answer (1), although misleading, was not false, and that answer (2) was unresponsive. Answer (1) however suggests that defendant was familiar with ziganette. Answer (2) relates back and responds to the first question and sets the foundation for defendant's denial in answer (3) of having seen a ziganette game at Nairy's. The preceding questions and answers constituted the predicate for question (3). They provided the context in which Alberti made the materially false statements in answer (3). We have approved the practice of including in the indictment enough of the testimony surrounding the allegedly false statements to place them in coherent context. United States v. Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d 1218, 1221 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 935 (1976); see Stassi v. United States, 401 F.2d 259, 262 (5 Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Giordano v. United States, 394 U.S. 310 (1969). At the new trial Alberti is entitled to limiting instructions to ensure that he is not convicted for his unresponsive but true statement that ziganette is (n)ot necessarily a high stakes card game. Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 359 (1973). 32 The court also held that answer (3) could not support a conviction because it is literally true. The court reasoned that Alberti testified that he was not at Nairy's around the clock, the evidence did not show that the ziganette game was in operation continuously, and the evidence showed that not all the games were for high stakes. We believe that the court misconstrued the nature of the question and the significance of the answer. Alberti's continuous presence at Nairy's was not essential to the falsity of his answer, for the answer depended only on the state of his knowledge, not on the extent of his presence at Nairy's. Nor was the government required to prove that the game was played continuously. The meaning of the phrase almost twenty-four hours a day, although a figure of speech, is clear. (T)he . . . interpretation placed upon the question by the defendant at the time of the alleged prevarication . . . is an issue for the jury . . . . United States v. Corr,543 F.2d 1042, 1049 (2 Cir. 1976); see Bonacorsa, supra, 528 F.2d at 1221. Here there was much evidence from which the jury could infer that Alberti knew that ziganette was played at Nairy's on a regular basis, day and night. And the fact that ziganette is not always played for high stakes is not fatal, for Alberti stated that he had never seen a high stakes ziganette game played at Nairy's. 33 The grand jury was trying to ascertain whether Alberti had knowledge that a high stakes ziganette game was played at Nairy's on a fairly regular and continuous basis. 34 When viewed with anything but the partisan eye of an advocate, the questions, as they followed one upon the other, were pointed toward the development of this information. Absent fundamental ambiguity or imprecision in the questioning, the meaning and truthfulness of appellant's answer was for the jury, Bonacorsa, supra, 528 F.2d at 1221. 35 The second group of questions and answers in the instant case concerned the connection of Bona with the ziganette game. The portion excised was as follows: 36 Q. What does Mr. Bona do for a living? 37 A. I don't know. 38 Q. He is at the club every day; isn't he? 39 A. I don't know if he is at the club every day. I don't know any activities that the man is in. 40 The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support a perjury conviction based on these questions and answers because there was no evidence about Bona's occupation or that Alberti was at the club every day. Again, the truth or falsity of Alberti's answers was a question for the jury. There was evidence of Bona's activity at Nairy's in Alberti's presence from which a jury could infer that Bona ran the game for a living. Further, these questions and answers led to other questions and answers about Bona's participation in the ziganette game which the court held, and we agree, were sufficient to support a conviction. The second group of questions and answers as such was properly included in the indictment. Bonacorsa, supra, 528 F.2d at 1221. 41 We hold that none of Alberti's grand jury testimony should have been stricken from the indictment. We direct that at the second trial the jury should be instructed, in accordance with Bronston, supra, 409 U.S. at 359, that it may not convict for unresponsive but literally true declarations. 42 Appeal dismissed as to that part of the order which granted a new trial; as to that part of the order which struck portions of the indictment, reversed and remanded with directions. The mandate shall issue forthwith.