Bronston v. United States

Background

A film producer who owned a company that made movies in Europe testified at a bankruptcy hearing about company assets. He was asked about Swiss bank accounts. He answered truthfully about the company account but gave no responsive answer about his own personal account, which in fact existed. He was later convicted of perjury on the theory that his truthful but evasive answer misled the questioner by negative implication.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the federal perjury law covers answers that are literally true but unresponsive and misleading by implication. The law punishes a witness who willfully states a material fact that he does not believe to be true. Because the challenged answer was literally true, the statute could not be stretched to criminalize an unresponsive statement that merely implied an untruth. The Court emphasized that lawyers are responsible for probing evasive testimony and that expanding perjury prosecutions to cover such answers would chill witness testimony and create uncertainty.

Real world impact

As a result, the Court reversed the conviction. The decision limits prosecutors’ ability to use a jury’s speculation about a witness’s intent to convict when the words spoken were literally true. It places practical responsibility on examiners to follow up and pin down answers during questioning. Witnesses in bankruptcy and other proceedings are less likely to face perjury charges for evasive but literally true responses, while counsel must be more precise and persistent in questioning.