Court Opinion

ID: 9461182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:08:12.270692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:56.285947
License: Public Domain

CRAVEN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
This perjury conviction rests on murky answers to imprecise questions about defendant’s minor role in the purchase of a Lincoln Continental five years previously. Everyone agrees the defendant did not “buy” the car in any sense of the word. All that he did was initiate the purchase made by his bosses, transmit special equipment specifications and confirm the order by telephone. The final retail purchase order ran to Paul Fry. The car was titled in Fry’s name, and one of the Pomponios, defendant’s employers, paid by check delivered directly to the salesman. The subsequent delivery to Fry occurred without the defendant’s participation. There is no evidence the defendant knew the purchase was to bribe Fry or that he even knew Fry was to receive the car. Yet the majority concludes that the prosecutor “made it clear that in using the term ‘purchase’ or ‘buying’ he was attempting to elicit from Paolicelli whether he had placed an order or otherwise indicated to the dealer the specifications relative to the Continental Mark III.”
I think the record points strongly in the opposite direction.1 In light of *975Bronston’s observation that “[p]recise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury,” 409 U.S. at 362, 93 S.Ct. at 602, I do not think a prosecutor can be excused from the repeated application of the words “buy” and “purchase,” themselves words of art, to a set of facts that everyone agrees did not amount to buying or purchasing. He especially cannot be excused when, as here, the prosecutor himself had knowledge of the facts and the defendant was a bricklayer with a grade-school education,2 who had, as a matter of fact, actually bought a car for himself from the same dealer.
The defendant expressed his obvious confusion with the questioner’s attempts to pinpoint a transaction involving a Continental Mark III in which the defendant was neither the purchaser nor the ultimate recipient:
Q. [Y]ou did not purchase an automobile at O’Brien and Rohall?
A. . . . You’re confusing me now.
A. ... I don’t remember buying it.
*976Q. I’m talking about a Continental Mark III.
A. No, sir, not that I recall.
Q. You didn’t buy a Continental Mark III, or place the order or have anything to do with the purchase of a Continental Mark III at O’Brien and Rohall ?
A. No, sir, I don’t remember buying the car.
Q. When I say “buying”, I’m talking about place the order and nothing else.
A. That I, myself, went and placed an order that says I want a certain carl
Q. Right.
(Emphasis added.) To the defendant’s last answer above, which showed him still responding in the context of a car for himself, the prosecutor responded with a confirmatory “Right,” followed immediately by:
Q. If you had, you would have remembered buying a Continental Mark III?
A. [Yes, if] I had laid out any money for a car like that, I think— I bought a Cougar from them, that’s what I bought.
Q. You bought a Cougar from them?
A. That’s right.
(Emphasis added.)
Finally, the prosecutor got somewhat on target and began to ask questions that related to defendant’s limited participation in the transaction. It is defendant’s answers to these questions that are held false. Where the majority errs, I respectfully suggest, is in failing to read the answers in the context of the preceding questions:
Q. My question to you is: did you . . . tell a Mr. Lyon at O’Brien and Rohall the specifications that you wanted with regard to a Continental Mark III?
A. No, sir, I don’t remember.
Q. If you had, you would remember?
A. I’m pretty sure, if it comes to that type of car.
Q. Have you ever ordered a Continental Mark III in your life?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or got involved in the purchase of one in any way ?
A. No, Sir.
The first three questions, though perhaps merely ambiguous seen alone, were consistent with the preceding questions relating to the purchase of another car by the defendant — one for his own use. The answers were contextually truthful, and the majority does not indicate otherwise. The perjury conviction must therefore rest on the premise that the last question brought about the necessary meeting of the minds: that it clearly signaled to the defendant that the direction of the previous dozen questions was being reversed; that the defendant now suddenly understood that “purchase” didn’t mean purchase but meant telephoning an order in for his boss; and that with instant insight the defendant then knew the inquiry was whether he placed an order for his employers for a Continental Mark III to be purchased and delivered later by them to an unknown third party. Maybe so, but I respectfully suggest that one last question in a long series isn’t enough for clarity, and that the prosecutor failed to carry his burden of pinning “the witness down to the specific object of the questioner’s inquiry.” Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. at 360, 93 S.Ct. at 601.
I would reverse.

. The prosecutor asked the following series of questions of defendant before the grand jury:
Q. Have you ever had occasion to purchase an automobile for the Pomponio -group?
A. No, sir, not that I know — I’ve dealt with a lot of the cars though.
Q. What cars ?
A. When I say “dealt with them”, took them to the garage or had them worked on or something like that and picked them up.
Q. But you have never been down to order a car for them, have you?
A. Not that I know of. I’ve ordered trucks.
Q. Did you ever order a car for Mr. Lou Pomponio, Sr.?
A. No, I don’t remember it. I don’t remember ordering the car, no. I remember ordering a ear that I was using myself, yes, which was an LTD.
Q. You ordered a car that you were using yourself?
A. Yes, that’s right, a company car.
Q. Is it your testimony that you have never ordered a car for Mr. Louis Pomponio, Sr., or for any of the Pomponio corporations?
A. Let’s put it this way: they allow me to go ahead and buy a car and I buy it. If that’s purchasing, yes, I have done it that way.
Q. Who was the car for?
A. For me. I used it on the job.
Q. But you have never bought a car or ordered a car or had anything to do with the purchase of a car that was not for your use on the job?
A. Not that I can remember, no. I don’t remember doing anything like that. I remember going — when my brother-in-law, Mr. Pomponio, bought his car, I went with him — and this was quite a while ago we’re talking about. I went to see the car, the color and — I brought him up there, he took a car back — I don’t remember how the thing goes, but to actually buy the car, no, I don’t remember.
Q. When I say “buy”, I don’t mean pay for the car. I don’t want to split hairs with you. What I’m talking about is the whole general circumstance of going in and talking to the salesman, telling the salesman what you want in the way of a car.
A. Not that I know of, no.
Q. You never purchased — are you familiar with O’Brien and Roliall?
A. Yes, I bought a car there.
Q. For yourself?
A. I had service done there. I’ve done quite a bit of service there.
Q. Did you buy a car there for Mr. Pom-ponio?
A. No, sir, not that I know of.
Q. Did you buy a car there for Mr. Paul Fry?
A. No, sir.
Q. You did not?
A. No, sir, not that I know of.
Q. Have you ever placed an order for an automobile at O’Brien and Rohall?
A. I don’t remember ever buying a car or purchasing.
Q. How many cars have you purchased?
*975A. I bought two cars.
Q. Did you purchase either one of those at O’Brien and Rohall?
A. No, sir.
Q. If you had purchased a car at O’Brien and Rohall, you would have remembered, would you not?
A. I would, yes.
Q. But your testimony is that you did not purchase an automobile at O’Brien and Rohall?
A. You’re putting something to me like I’m positive that I did and you have got me thinking whether I did or did not. You’re confusing me now.
Q. No, I just want to get your testimony.
A. I don’t remember. I don’t remember buying it.
Q. You don’t remember buying one there?
A. I bought a Cougar, I think, but that’s way back.
Q. At O’Brien and Rohall?
A. I think so, I don’t remember. I had a Cougar—
Q. I’m talking about a Continental Mark III.
A. No, sir, not that I recall.
Q. You didn’t buy a Continental Mark III, or place the order or have anything to do with the purchase of a Continental Mark III at O’Brien and Rohall?
A. No, sir, I don’t remember buying the ear.
Q. When I say “buying”, I’m talking about place the order and nothing else.
A. That I, myself, went- and placed an order that says I want a certain car?
Q. Right.
A. No, sir, I — Iwas just going to tell you something else, but no.
Q. If you had, you would have remembered buying a Continental Mark III?
A. I’m pretty sure, that’s an expensive car. If I had laid out any money for a car like that, I think — I bought a Cougar from them, that’s what I bought.
Q. You bought a Cougar from them?
A. That’s right.
Q. My question to you is: did you — and I’m not saying that you did and that I have any definite evidence that you did or didn’t, I just want to get it fairly definite on the record that you did not tell a Mr. Lyon at O’Brien and Rohall the specifications that you wanted with regard to a Continental Mark III.
A. No, sir, I don’t remember.
Q. If you had, you would remember?
A. I’m pretty sure, if it comes to that type of a car.
Q. Have you ever ordered a Continental Mark III in your life?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or got involved in the purchase of one in any way?
A. No, sir.
The indictment was based upon the answers to the last four questions:
Q. My question to you is: did you tell a Mr. Lyon at O’Brien and Rohall the specifications that you wanted with regard to a Continental Mark III?
A. No, sir, I don’t remember.
Q. If you had, you would remember?
A. I’m pretty sure, if it comes to that type of a car.
Q. Have you ever ordered a Continental Mark III in your life?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or got involved in the purchase of one in any way?
A. No, sir.

. When a perjury conviction turns on the particular language involved, the defendant’s intellectual, educational, and environmental background must be considered. United States v. Rose, 215 F.2d 617 (3d Cir. 1954). The irony here is that it was the prosecutor, not the defendant, that had so much difficulty with the language.