Hammer v. United States

Background

A man was indicted on three counts in the Southern District of New York; the trial judge directed a not-guilty verdict on the first and third counts, but a jury convicted him on the second count and he was sentenced to one year and ten months in prison. The second count charged that, during a bankruptcy proceeding for a woman adjudged bankrupt, he persuaded Louis H. Trinz to swear before the bankruptcy referee that he had loaned the bankrupt $500 and received a note, testimony later alleged to be false. At trial Trinz testified that his prior statement was false and that the defendant had induced him to lie.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the unsupported testimony of Trinz at the defendant’s trial was enough to prove that Trinz’s earlier oath was false. Citing the general rule in perjury prosecutions, the Court explained that the uncorroborated oath of one witness cannot establish the falsity of the matter charged as perjury. Because subornation (inducing another to lie under oath) requires that the other person actually committed perjury, the same rule applies to subornation cases. The Court found that the prosecution relied solely on Trinz’s unsupported testimony and that such evidence was insufficient to prove the falsity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Real world impact

The Court held that the trial court should have directed a verdict of not guilty because the government offered no corroboration for the alleged false oath. The conviction was reversed. Going forward, prosecutors must present evidence beyond the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the alleged perjurer in similar cases, or risk reversal on appeal.