United States v. Robert Dezarn
1998 WL 712524, 157 F.3d 1042, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 25729 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant may be convicted of perjury for giving a responsive but misleading answer to an imprecise question if a jury can find beyond a reasonable doubt from the context that the defendant understood the question's intended subject matter and knowingly gave a false answer with the intent to deceive. The 'literal truth' defense is inapplicable when a defendant is aware of a questioner's mistaken premise and gives a directly responsive, rather than evasive, answer.
Facts:
- In the spring of 1990, Robert DeZarn and other Kentucky National Guard officers met to plan a fundraiser for gubernatorial candidate Brereton Jones.
- On May 19, 1990, a large 'Preakness Party' was held at Billy Wellman's home, where DeZarn personally solicited and collected campaign contributions for Jones.
- In June 1991, Wellman held a small dinner party for only six people, including DeZarn, at which no campaign contributions were made or collected.
- After Jones was elected governor, he appointed DeZarn as Adjutant General of the Kentucky National Guard.
- In 1992, a Selective Retention Board appointed by DeZarn removed an unusually large number of officers, prompting complaints of political retaliation.
- The Army Inspector General launched an investigation into the allegations, which were widely covered by local newspapers that interviewed DeZarn about the 1990 party.
- During a sworn interview as part of the investigation, an army officer asked DeZarn about a 'Preakness Party' held in '1991'.
- DeZarn responded that the party was 'Absolutely not' a political fundraising activity and denied seeing or being aware of any campaign contributions being made there.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Robert DeZarn with one count of perjury in the U.S. District Court.
- DeZarn moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing his statements were literally true and therefore not perjurious.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss.
- The case proceeded to trial, and a jury returned a guilty verdict.
- DeZarn moved for a Judgment of Acquittal, which the district court denied before sentencing him to 15 months incarceration and a $5,000 fine.
- DeZarn (Appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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:
Can a defendant be convicted of perjury for a responsive but misleading answer to an imprecise question if the context shows the defendant understood the question's actual subject and intended to deceive the questioner?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosen, District Judge
Yes, a defendant can be convicted of perjury for a responsive but misleading answer to an imprecise question if the context shows the defendant understood the question's actual subject and intended to deceive the questioner. The court distinguished this case from Bronston v. United States, where the 'literal truth' defense protected a witness who gave a non-responsive but truthful answer. Here, DeZarn gave direct, categorical answers that were misleading. The court held that the jury is permitted to consider the full context of the questioning, including the defendant's knowledge of the investigation's subject matter, to determine if the defendant knew what the question meant despite its imprecision. Given the evidence that there was only one famous 'Preakness Party' fundraiser in 1990, that DeZarn helped plan and collect money at it, and that he had recently discussed it with reporters, a jury could reasonably conclude he knew the investigator was referring to the 1990 party and intentionally provided false testimony.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the limits of the 'literal truth' defense established in Bronston v. United States. It establishes that perjury is not a 'game of wits' and that a witness cannot exploit a minor, good-faith mistake in a question to provide a misleading but technically true answer. The ruling shifts the focus from the syntactical precision of the questioning to the witness's state of mind and intent to deceive, as inferred from the surrounding context. This precedent empowers prosecutors in perjury cases by allowing juries to look beyond the four corners of a transcript to determine if a witness knowingly and willfully provided false testimony about a subject they clearly understood.
