Document: 409 U.S. 352 93 S.Ct. 595 34 L.Ed.2d 568 Samuel BRONSTON, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 71-1011. Argued Nov. 15, 1972. Decided Jan. 10, 1973. Syllabus Federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, does not reach a witness' answer that is literally true, but unresponsive, even assuming the witness intends to mislead his questioner by answer, and arguably 'false negative implication.' A prosecution not, in our adversary system, primary safeguard against errant testimony; given incongruity of an unresponsive it questioner's burden frame interrogation acutely elicit precise information he seeks. Pp. 357—362. 453 F.2d 555, reversed. Sheldon H. Elsen, New York City, for petitioner. Andrew L. Frey, Dept. Justice, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted writ this case consider narrow important question application federal 1621:1 whether may be convicted under oath, true responsive asked misleading implication. 2 Petitioner sole owner Bronston Productions, Inc., company between 1958 1964, produced motion pictures various European locations. For these enterprises, opened bank accounts number foreign countries; 1962, example, had 37 five countries. As president petitioner supervised transactions involving accounts. 3 In June petitioned arrangement with creditors Chapter XI Bankruptcy Act, 11 701 et seq. On 1966, referee bankruptcy held 21(a) hearing determine, benefit creditors, extent location company's assets.2 Petitioner's conviction was founded on answers him as at hearing, particular following colloquy lawyer creditor Productions: 4 'Q. Do you have any Swiss banks, Bronston? 5 'A. No, sir. 6 Have ever? 7 The account there about six months, Zurich. 8 nominees who banks? 9 10 sir.' 12 It undisputed period nearly years, October 1959 personal International Credit Bank Geneva, Switzerland, into which made deposits upon drew checks totaling more than $180,000. likewise petitioner's were truthful. (a) did time questioning account. (b) Zurich described (c) Neither nor before Government's went forward theory order questioner, answered second literal truthfulness unresponsively addressed assets own—thereby implying no relevant time. 13 At trial, District Court instructed jury 'basic issue' 'spoke belief.' Perjury, court stated, 'necessarily involves state mind accused' 'essentially consists wilfully testifying truth fact defendant believe true'; testimony could found 'wilfully' false unless 'fully understood questions put nevertheless gave knowing same false.' further if understand reason perjury. could, however, 'not when considered context given, constitute(d) statement.'3 14 began its deliberations 11:30 a.m. Several times requested exhibits or additional instructions from court, one point, request jury, repeated full. 6:10 p.m., returned verdict, finding guilty count us today another charge here relevant. 15 Appeals, contended, post-trial motions Court, key imprecise suggestive interpretations. addition, contended basis concededly truthful, however unresponsive. divided Appeals readily susceptible reply adequately tested defendant's belief veracity answer. that, '(f)or purposes containing half also constitutes lie implication, intentionally place called proper question, perjury.' 559. renews attack specificity legal sufficiency support problem ambiguity free doubt, we need issue. Even assuming, do, specifically focused accounts, conclude statute cannot construed sustain based 16 substantially identical language predecessors century, 'a enacted effort keep course justice pollution United States v. Williams, 341 58, 68, 71 595, 600, 95 L.Ed. 747 (1951). general provision applicable proceedings. Hammer States, 271 620, 46 603, 70 1118 (1926). truthful proceeding great, since searching inquiry condition estate bankrupt, assist discovering collecting assets, develop facts circumstances bear discharge.' Travis 123 268, (CA10 1941). Here, elsewhere, perpetration 'well affect dearest concerns parties tribunal. . .' Norris, 300 564, 574, 57 535, 539, 81 808 (1937). 17 There is, outset, serious applying 1621 words confine offense 'willfully states material matter true.' Beyond crucial assume, first directed indeed, implication never account; casual conversation interpretation might reasonably drawn. But are dealing make criminal act willfully implies true.4 Government urges broadly thereby fulfill historic purpose reinforcing factfinding process. go beyond thought they express intention Congress, perceive why Congress would intend drastic sanction cure testimonial mishap been reached single counsel alert—as every examiner ought be—to Under pressures tensions interrogation, uncommon most earnest witnesses give entirely responsive. Sometimes excess caution apprehension read too much little it. should come surprise participant something conceal consciously tries do so, debtor embarrassed plight yield reluctantly. responsibility laywer probe; cross-examination particular, probing, prying, pressing form inquiry. If evades, lawyer's recognize evasion bring back mark, flush out whole tools examination. 19 say intended examiner. permitted engage conjecture complete face, divert examiner; only bears 'he (his answer) To hold otherwise inject new confusing element system know. Witnesses unsure their misunderstandings inadequacies examiners, well fear having vague rubric 'intent mislead' 'perjury seminal modern treatment history concludes consideration policy overshadowed all others during years emerged common-law offense: 'that measures taken must so severe discourage appearing testifying.' Study reprinted Report Law Revision Commission, Legis.Doc.No.60, p. 249 (1935). leading 19th century commentator, quoted Dean Wigmore, noted English law 'throws fence round person accused perjury,' 20 'the obligation protecting oppression, annoyance, charges, threats borne testimony, far paramount giving deserts. repress crime, prevention better cure: England relies, purpose, means provided detecting exposing crime moment commission,—such publicity, cross-examination, aid etc.; infliction severe, though excessive punishment, wherever commission has clearly proved.' W. Best, Principles Evidence 606 (C. Chamberlayne ed. 1883). 21 See J. 275—276 (3d 1940). Addressing problem, Montesquieu took starting point French tradition capital punishment relatively mild pillory. He disparity punishments explained because permit present own witnesses, while 'they admit both sides, affair discussed some measure them; consequently less dangerous, remedy France.' Montesquieu, Spirit Laws, supra, 253. 22 Thus, light traditional Anglo-American judgment sole, primary, testimony. While lower courts dealt often,' expressions deal precisely 'it said preponderate respondent's contention.' U.S., 576, S.Ct., 540. cases position loosely construed, invoked simply wily succeeds derailing questioner—so long speaks truth. pin down specific object Wall, 371 398 (CA6 1967); Slutzky, 79 504 (CA3 1935); Galanos 49 898 1931); Cobert, 227 F.Supp. 915 (SD Cal.1964). 23 contend incomplete response sent determine committed sidetrack questioner. recognizes, effect unlimited unsettling. said, rather, falls within limited category responses especially strong tendency cited above, tells defendants simple .. neither defendant—as here—make affirmative statements constituted denials related fact.' Thus isolates two factors require case; unresponsiveness cast accompanying 24 This analysis confining position, persuade extend coverage face untrue 'negative Though perhaps plausible argument can likely mislead,5 such must, think, predicated being aware Yet, equal force argued very alert press desires. stated affirmative, actually posed; again, hypothesis, examiner's awareness lead reframe initial greater precision. Precise imperative predicate 25 guileless shrewdly calculated evade. Nevertheless, constrained agree Judge Lumbard, dissented special problems arising remedied through 'questioner's acuity' prosecution. 26 Reversed. provides: 'Whoever, oath competent tribunal, officer, person, authorizes administered, will testify, declare, depose, certify truly, written declaration, deposition, certificate subscribed, contrary subscribes perjury, shall, except expressly law, fined $2,000 imprisoned both. section statement subscription without States.' 334 734, meeting after petition filed. Section 336, 736, provides judge court-appointed shall preside 'shall examine cause examined hear proceeding.' 44(a), Chapters I VII inconsistent conflict provisions (Chapter XI).' 702. provides, pertinent part, '(t)he may, creditor, designated persons appear concerning acts, conduct, property bankrupt.' Numerous broad scope collected Collier, 21.11 (14th 1971). officers bankrupt required undergo examination still filing. Id., 21.09. appears interest adverse party calling 21(j), 44(j), examining bound 1A 5.22 1972). example 'as illustration only': '(I)f ascertain how many entered store day responds saying knows 50 day, technically times.' hardly comparable answer; 'five times' hypothetical contains nothing sidetracked. infra, 358. Moreover, doubtful which, quantitative inquiry, baldly understates numerical 'technically Whether determined reference purports isolation. An unique respect definition prevents question—unless speculation what 'implies.' 359. measured standards criminally fraudulent extortionate statements. context, goes 'rather punishing intentional creation impressions selection representations, actor himself generally selects arranges representations.' contrast, 'under disclosure largely hands presiding officer.' A.L.I. Model Penal Code 208.20, Comment (Tent.Draft 6, 1957, 124). Arguably, assume logical justification usually irrelevancies. statement—a asked. case, assumed denied Switzerland; unspoken denial provide nexus adverting, response,

Category: 0