United States v. Ricky Allen Davis
548 F.2d. 840, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10516 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a perjury conviction, the 'two-witness rule' can be satisfied by the testimony of one witness plus corroborating evidence, which may include the defendant's own prior signed admission or contradictory testimony given at trial.
Facts:
- On October 18, 1975, a service station on a U.S. Naval Ammunition Depot in Hawaii was burglarized.
- An FBI investigation targeted a marine, Curt Allen Gustafson, and led to the questioning of his fellow marine and acquaintance, Ricky Allen Davis.
- On January 14, 1976, Davis was interviewed by FBI Special Agent Lui and denied any knowledge of Gustafson's involvement in the burglary.
- After being subpoenaed to a grand jury, Davis met with Agent Lui again on February 3, 1976, and stated that Gustafson had confessed to the burglary.
- Agent Lui transcribed Davis's statement, which Davis reviewed, verified in his own handwriting as 'true and correct,' and signed.
- The signed statement detailed how Gustafson had told Davis about breaking into the gas station and later showed him where a stolen safe was dumped.
- On February 6, 1976, Davis testified under oath before a federal grand jury investigating the burglary.
- During his grand jury testimony, Davis denied that Gustafson had ever indicated any involvement in the burglary, directly contradicting his signed statement to the FBI.
Procedural Posture:
- The government charged Ricky Allen Davis in the U.S. District Court (trial court) with seven counts of perjury for statements made before a federal grand jury.
- A jury found Davis guilty on all seven counts.
- The trial court sentenced Davis to a fine and five years of probation.
- Davis, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 defendant's own prior signed statement and contradictory trial testimony constitute sufficient corroborating evidence to satisfy the 'two-witness rule' for a perjury conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, J.
Yes. A defendant's own prior signed statement and contradictory trial testimony can constitute sufficient corroborating evidence to satisfy the two-witness rule for a perjury conviction. The 'two-witness rule' requires that the falsity of a defendant's statement be proven by either two witnesses or one witness plus corroborating evidence. Here, Agent Lui's testimony about Davis's prior inconsistent statement serves as the testimony of one witness. The written statement, signed and verified by Davis himself, acts as a clear admission and provides powerful corroboration. Furthermore, the defendant's own confusing and contradictory testimony at trial can itself supply the required corroboration, as established in precedents like Vedin v. United States. The corroborative evidence need not be independently sufficient to prove guilt, but must simply tend to confirm the truth of the primary witness’s testimony and be inconsistent with the defendant's innocence.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms a flexible application of the traditional two-witness rule for perjury, clarifying that the corroborating evidence does not need to come from an independent third-party source. The court establishes that a defendant's own words, whether in a prior signed admission or through self-contradictory testimony at trial, can be used to build the evidentiary foundation for their own perjury conviction. This lowers the practical barrier for prosecutors in perjury cases where a witness recants a prior statement, as the recanted statement itself can become a key piece of corroborating evidence.
