Opinion ID: 3151132
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Perjury Trial

Text: A jury trial was held in the perjury matter.18 Special Agents Fife and Conley testified, as did Dudley's wife, Lori. In 18 Since Dudley attacks the sufficiency of the evidence in the perjury matter, we recite the relevant facts in the light most - 25 - brief, Agents Fife and Conley testified to the events surrounding the search of Dudley's residence and the subsequent interrogation of Dudley in Agent Fife's SUV. The agents testified that at no time -- upon entry to the apartment, before the interrogation or during -- did Dudley ask to speak with a lawyer. Agent Fife also explained that he, Agent Conley, and Dudley had all testified at the April 5, 2012 suppression hearing. Portions of the suppression hearing transcript were then admitted into evidence. At the close of the government's case-in-chief, the district court denied Dudley's motion for judgment of acquittal, rejecting Dudley's two arguments: (1) that the indictment (specifically paragraph four)19 required the government to prove favorable to the verdict. See United States v. Alverio-Meléndez, 640 F.3d 412, 416 n.1 (1st Cir. 2011). 19 The indictment provides, in relevant part: 3. At the time and place alleged, JOEL DUDLEY, while under oath, knowingly declared before the Court . . . as follows . . . Q: No, sir, I'm asking on August 20th how many times are you telling this Court that you told them you wanted a lawyer? A: Three. Q: Three separate occasions. A: Yes. Q: Prior to being interviewed and during the interview. A: Yes. Q: You told them you wanted a lawyer. A: Yes, I did. - 26 - that Dudley did not invoke his right to counsel at any point -- not just during the interrogation with Agents Fife and Conley -- and the government's failure to call the other officers on the entry team rendered the evidence insufficient; and (2) that evidence of materiality was insufficient because if, as Agents Fife and Conley testified, Dudley was not in custody, whether he invoked his right to counsel was immaterial. Denying the motion, the district court concluded that the indictment refers to Conley and Fife throughout and that even if [Dudley] had asked for lawyers at other times, if he testified falsely deliberately as regards to what he told Fife and [Conley], the Government is safe as far as the motion is concerned. Regarding the materiality issue, the district court found that the statement was material because it was intended to be material as of the time the statement was made. After Dudley's sufficiency motion was denied, Lori testified for the defense. Lori stated that as the officers entered the apartment, Dudley told her to call Higgins, his Q: And your testimony under oath today is that they basically ignored that and continued to question you; is that correct? A: Yes, that is correct. 4. The italicized testimony of JOEL DUDLEY, as he then and there well knew and believed, was false in that DUDLEY did not invoke his right to counsel or otherwise tell investigators he wanted a lawyer at any time prior to or during the August 20, 2012 interview. - 27 - lawyer. Lori testified that she was in the living room and that Dudley was in the hallway when this request was made, but despite that distance she confirmed that Dudley did not yell this request. After Lori testified, the defense rested. Dudley did not renew the motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of his case. The case was then submitted to the jury, and Dudley was found guilty. Dudley did not renew his motion for acquittal after the guilty verdict.