At page 287 After a careful analysis, we are unable to draw a meaningful distinction between the response to the ill phrased question before us, and the unresponsive answer to the question in Bronston” (footnote omitted)4 citing cases
- United States v. Terrance Alan Eddy, 737 F.2d 564 (6th Cir. 1984).publishedOn that appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, noting that Bronston "essentially, tracked the reasoning set forth by Judge Ely in this case.” United States v. Cook, 489 F.2d 286, 287 (9th Cir.1973).
- In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay, 160 Wash. 2d 671 (Wash. 2007).published(After a careful analysis, we are unable to draw a meaningful distinction between the response to the ill phrased question before us, and the unresponsive answer to the question in Bronston” (footnote omitted))
- In Re Dornay, 161 P.3d 333 (Wash. 2007).published(After a careful analysis, we are unable to draw a meaningful distinction between the response to the ill phrased question before us, and the unresponsive answer to the question in Bronston . " (footnote omitted))
- United States v. Robert J. Kehoe, 562 F.2d 65 (1st Cir. 1977).publishedSee, e. g., United States v. Cook, 489 F.2d 286, 287 (9th Cir. 1973).
At page 286 cited at this page2 citing cases
- United States v. Tara Mazzeo, 592 F. App'x 559 (9th Cir. 2015).unpublishedCf. United States v. Cook, 489 F.2d 286, 286 (9th Cir.1973).
- Johnny J. E. Meadows v. Lon Evans, Sheriff, Tarrant Cnty., Texas, 550 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1977).publishedSee Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). . 489 F.2d at 286, quoting Smith v. Logan, 311 F.Supp. 898, 899 (W.D.Va.1970). .
Other citing cases
- United States v. Frank Serafini, 167 F.3d 812 (3d Cir. 1999).published
- United States v. Victor Cowley & Michael St. Clair, 720 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir. 1983).published
- United States v. Edward Sinclair Williams, 552 F.2d 226 (8th Cir. 1977).published
v.
Milford E. COOK, Appellant
OPINION
Before ELY, WRIGHT and KILKEN-NY, Circuit Judges.
KILKENNY, Circuit Judge:Appellant’s perjury conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 was initially affirmed by a majority of the panel on August 23, 1972. Judge Ely, with his customary sagacity, dissented. Then along came Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), a decision which, in substantial part, considered the precise problems with which we are here concerned and, essentially, tracked the reasoning previously set forth by Judge Ely in this case. We recalled our judgment and remanded to the district judge for reconsideration in the light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bronston. After due consideration, the district judge denied appellant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal and for dismissal of the indictment. Hence, this second appeal.
After a careful analysis, we are unable to draw a meaningful distinction between the response to the ill phrased question before us, [1] and the unresponsive answer to the question in Bronston. Fairly interpreted, Bronston stands for the precept that a perjury conviction cannot be based on answers which are literally true, even though false information is conveyed by implication. A precise grammatical reading of the challenged question and answer demonstrates that Cook’s answer was literally true. Consequently, Bronston controls on this issue.
Giving a reasonable interpretation to the entire record, we find no evidence to support a conviction under the second question and answer set forth in the indictment. [2]
The judgment of the lower court must be reversed and the indictment dismissed.
It is so ordered.