Bronston v. United States
409 U.S. 352 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the federal perjury statute, a witness may not be convicted of perjury for an answer that is literally true but unresponsive to the question asked and arguably misleading by negative implication.
Facts:
- Samuel Bronston was the sole owner of Bronston Productions, Inc., a company that produced motion pictures in Europe.
- To facilitate these productions, the company opened and maintained numerous bank accounts in several European countries.
- Bronston Productions filed for bankruptcy in June 1964.
- During a bankruptcy hearing, a creditor's lawyer questioned Bronston under oath about his finances.
- When asked, "Have you ever?" in reference to Swiss bank accounts, Bronston replied, "The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich."
- This answer was literally true, as the company did have such an account.
- However, Bronston failed to disclose that he had personally maintained a large bank account in Geneva, Switzerland for nearly five years.
- Bronston's answer was unresponsive to the question about his personal accounts, instead referring to the company's account.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Government charged Samuel Bronston with perjury in the U.S. District Court.
- The jury, instructed that it could convict if Bronston's answer was a false statement in context even if not literally false, found him guilty.
- Bronston, the appellant, appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that an answer constituting a 'lie by negative implication' could be perjury.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Bronston's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a witness commit perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 by giving an answer under oath that is literally true but unresponsive and intentionally misleading by negative implication?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. A witness's literally true but unresponsive answer to a question does not constitute perjury under the federal statute. The statute criminalizes a witness who willfully states a material matter which he does not believe to be true; it does not extend to answers that are merely misleading by implication. The Court reasoned that the adversarial system of justice places the burden on the examining attorney to remedy an evasive or unresponsive answer. If a witness evades a question, it is the lawyer's duty to recognize the evasion and press the witness for a direct and complete response with more precise questioning. Allowing a perjury conviction to be based on a jury's speculation about a witness's intent to mislead would inject a confusing and dangerous element into the testimonial process, potentially discouraging witnesses from testifying. The remedy for a shrewdly evasive witness lies in the 'questioner's acuity,' not in a federal perjury prosecution.
Analysis:
The Bronston decision significantly narrows the scope of the federal perjury statute, establishing that literal truth is a complete defense. It firmly places the responsibility on the examining counsel to control the witness and elicit the desired information through skillful cross-examination. This ruling protects witnesses from being prosecuted for answers that are technically accurate, even if their intent is to mislead or conceal. Consequently, it forces attorneys to be more precise and persistent in their questioning rather than relying on later perjury charges to punish evasive testimony.
Unlock the full brief for Bronston v. United States