Opinion ID: 351948
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count III: The Eduardo Valdez Case

Text: 45 Eduardo Valdez, like Yva Henry, was a client of Davis. The Valdez charge sheet, 51 Gov't Ex. 15, shows the costs incurred in his behalf. Under the heading COURT REPORTERS, the following handwritten entries appear: 46 ( 52 ), ( 53 ) 47 As to item (1), check # 1831 was actually drawn for $75.70, not for $87.40. Richard Castillo testified that the check was received in payment of an invoice (Gov't Ex. 17) for court reporting services in connection with the case of Slater v. Faucett. In regard to item (2), check # 1897 was actually drawn for $11.25, not for $80.00. Moreover, Besoner's ledger sheet, Gov't Ex. 18, shows that this check covered court reporting services in connection with the deposition of Jones in the case of Clark v. Jones. Apparently neither of these two depositions had anything to do with the Valdez case. 48 The following Abrams testimony is the subject of count III: 49 Q.1 Now, looking at Grand Jury Exhibit No. 2, do you recognize the handwriting? 50 A.1 Yes. 51 Q.2 Whose handwriting is that? 52 A.2 Mine. 53 Q.3 All that handwriting? 54 A.3 Yes. 55 Q.4 You have depositions listed there. 56 A.4 Yes. 57 Q.5 That's your handwriting, also? 58 A.5 Yes. 59 Q.6 In cases when you charge for a deposition like that did the particular client have a deposition taken? 60 A.6 Yes. 61 Q.7 And they would be would you have somebody, a court reporter there to take down what they said? 62 A.7 I wouldn't be aware I wouldn't be there when the court reporter was there. 63 Q.8 But there would be a cost? 64 A.8 Yes. 65 Q.9 Who would give you that cost? 66 How would you know what to charge for a particular item like that? 67 A.9 I would get a bill. 68 Q.10 From whom? 69 A.10 From the court reporter. 70 Q.11 Then you'd take that bill. 71 On the bill would it say the deposition or the particular work that was done on that? 72 A.11 Yes. Count III alleges the following violation: 73 The aforesaid testimony of Anita Abrams as she then and there well knew and believed, was false in that she had prepared the charge sheet in case number 5469 on Eduardo Valdez which reflects that check number 1897 dated May 19, 1975 in the amount of $80.00 was paid to Jack Besoner and Associates for court reporter costs which she knew did not accurately reflect the costs; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623. 74 While it is undoubtedly true that the Valdez charge sheet did not accurately reflect the costs, it is clear that Abrams was never asked whether and never stated that the charge sheet did accurately reflect the costs. Indeed, careful scrutiny of these answers in light of Bronston v. United States, 1973, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 reveals that none of these answers is literally false. Bronston stands for the proposition that the federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1621, is not violated when a witness gives an evasive, nonresponsive but literally true answer, even if the answer is intentionally misleading and arguably false by negative implication. 54 Moreover, Bronston expressly places on the questioner the burden of pinning the witness down to the specific object of the inquiry. Chief Justice Burger wrote, Precise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury. 409 U.S. at 362, 93 S.Ct. at 602, 34 L.Ed.2d at 576. 75 As to the specific answers contained in Count III, there is no indication in the record that answers 1-5 are false. Questions and answers 7-11 are framed in terms of what Abrams would do as a matter of normal office routine and there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that these answers are false. None of questions 7-11 asks specifically what Abrams actually did with respect to the Valdez case. The only question which comes even close to asking directly about Valdez, by use of the verb did instead of would, is No. 6: In cases when you charge for a deposition like that did the particular client have a deposition taken? (Emphasis added.) This question suffers an infirmity similar to those in questions 7-11, namely, it inquires about cases (plural) like that, not about the Valdez case in particular. 55 There is insufficient evidence in the record to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Abrams' affirmative response to question No. 6, indicating that in cases like that a deposition was taken, is false. Because the questioner failed, for whatever reason, to pin Abrams down on these charges and asked instead general hypothetical questions, 56 Abrams' conviction on Count III must be reversed. Since there is no way at this point for the government to cure the questions' defects, a judgment of acquittal must be entered on Count III. Brumley, supra, 560 F.2d at 1277.