Opinion ID: 561364
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Perjury Trap

Text: 19 Chen contends the government set out to ensnare him in a perjury trap. A perjury trap is created when the government calls a witness before the grand jury for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in order to prosecute him later for perjury. United States v. Simone, 627 F.Supp. 1264, 1268 (D.N.J.1986) (perjury trap involves the deliberate use of a judicial proceeding to secure perjured testimony, a concept in itself abhorrent). It involves the government's use of its investigatory powers to secure a perjury indictment on matters which are neither material nor germane to a legitimate ongoing investigation of the grand jury. See United States v. Crisconi, 520 F.Supp. 915, 920 (D.Del.1981). Such governmental conduct might violate a defendant's fifth amendment right to due process, Simone, 627 F.Supp. at 1267-72, or be an abuse of grand jury proceedings, Crisconi, 520 F.Supp. at 920. See generally Gershman, The Perjury Trap, 129 U.Pa.L.Rev. 624, 683 (1981). 20 The Ninth Circuit has not yet recognized the perjury trap doctrine. See United States v. Taylor, 881 F.2d 840, 841 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Howard, 867 F.2d 548, 549-50 (9th Cir.1989); but cf. Bursey v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059, 1080 n. 10 (9th Cir.1972) (If a court divines that the purpose of repetitious questioning is to coax a witness into the commission of perjury ... such conduct would be an abuse of the grand jury process). We need not decide in this case whether to embrace the perjury trap doctrine. Here, the facts render the perjury trap defense inapplicable in any event. 21 When testimony is elicited before a grand jury that is attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, United States v. Devitt, 499 F.2d 135, 140 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 975, 95 S.Ct. 1974, 44 L.Ed.2d 466 (1975), or conducting a legitimate investigation into crimes which had in fact taken place within its jurisdiction, United States v. Chevoor, 526 F.2d 178, 185 (1st Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 935, 96 S.Ct. 1665, 48 L.Ed.2d 176 (1976), the perjury trap doctrine is, by definition, inapplicable. 22 The questions asked of Chen when he testified before the grand jury were relevant to the grand jury's investigation. That investigation was much broader than a simple examination of Chen's 1981 dealings with Crisostomo and Taitague. The investigation concerned payoffs to employees of PUAG over the last ten years. As a contractor who had done a substantial volume of business with PUAG for years, and who was still doing business with it at the time of the grand jury proceeding, Chen was a person who likely would have knowledge of whether kickbacks had been paid to any PUAG employees in the past or were still being paid. Additionally, an inference could be drawn from other evidence that Chen's payment of kickbacks might possibly go beyond those paid to Taitague and Crisostomo. This evidence was supplied by a cooperating vendor who had informed the government that Chen's company would consistently receive PUAG purchase orders even though his company's submitted bids were not the lowest. 23 The fact that the statute of limitations had run on the alleged 1981 bribery does not preclude Chen's perjury prosecution, because it does not render his grand jury testimony any less material to the grand jury's investigation into ongoing criminal activity within PUAG. It is settled that the running of the statute of limitations on an underlying crime does not have an impact on the materiality of a false declaration in terms of the requirement that the witness make a false material declaration in order to be prosecuted. See United States v. Vap, 852 F.2d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir.1988) (fact that statute of limitations had run not important when investigation wider than scope of defendant's conduct); United States v. Reed, 647 F.2d 849, 853 (8th Cir.1981) (irrelevant that part of testimony concerned matters for which defendant could not personally be prosecuted); United States v. Nickels, 502 F.2d 1173, 1176 (7th Cir.1974) (same), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 2237, 48 L.Ed.2d 837 (1976); United States v. Cohn, 452 F.2d 881, 883 (2d Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 975, 92 S.Ct. 1196, 31 L.Ed.2d 249 (1972) (same). 24 Here, it is clear that even though the statute of limitations had run with regard to the alleged bribery in 1981, [t]ruthful answers to those questions might well have served as the foundation for a more 'fruitful investigation' into the broader subject matter of the grand jury's inquiry. Devitt, 499 F.2d at 139. Had Chen answered all the questions honestly, the grand jury potentially would have been in a position to ascertain more details about the bribery scandal and to further identify its true parameters. 25 The fact that, subsequent to Chen's grand jury testimony, the government offered to forego a perjury prosecution in exchange for Chen's cooperation does not render his prosecution impermissible. Such a deal is commonplace and suggests the government held a sincere belief Chen possessed information material to the ongoing investigation, information which the government was willing to bargain to get. 26 Chen also contends that his perjury prosecution was improper because the government anticipated he would commit perjury in testifying before the grand jury because he had lied to the government investigators in the informal interviews. We reject this argument. Here, while the government may have anticipated Chen would give false testimony before the grand jury, it is also apparent the government recognized that [Chen] ... might provide information about the pending investigation. Caputo, 633 F.Supp. 1479, 1487 (E.D.Pa.1986). Indeed, the government had reason to expect that Chen would testify truthfully once placed in the solemn atmosphere of the grand jury room. 27 [F]or many witnesses the grand jury room engenders an atmosphere conducive to truthtelling, for it is likely that upon being brought before such a body of neighbors and fellow citizens, and having been placed under a solemn oath to tell the truth, many witnesses feel obliged to do just that. 28 United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 187-88, 97 S.Ct. 1814, 1818-19, 52 L.Ed.2d 238 (1977). 29 Accordingly, the government's actions in this case were not beyond the pale of permissible prosecutorial conduct. Chevoor, 526 F.2d at 185.