United States v. Selvin Percell, 526 F.2d 189 (9th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Selvin Percell, 526 F.2d 189 (9th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Hasan (ca10, 2010-06-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hasan
10th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir.1975); see also United States v. Farnham, 791 F.2d 331, 334 (4th Cir.1986) (“Given the wide-ranging investigative function of the grand jury, the materiality of any line of inquiry pursued by a grand jury must be broadly construed.” (citation omitted)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Michael E. Gaudin (2×)
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Ditto for false statements to grand juries, United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 557 (9th Cir.1985) (construing 18 U.S.C. § 1623 ), United States v. Dipp, 581 F.2d 1323, 1328 (9th Cir.1978) (discussing information judge needs to make materiality determination under section 1623), United States v. Sisack, 527 F.2d 917 , 920 n. 2 (9th Cir.1975) (judge must decide materiality under section 1623), United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir.1975) (same); for false statements in applications for payments in federally-approved plans for medical assistance, United States v. Larm, 824 F.2…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Taylor
N.D. Cal. · 1988 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Gordon, 844 F.2d 1397, 1403-04 (9th Cir.1988); Martinez, 837 F.2d at 902 ; United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 557 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Dipp, 581 F.2d 1323, 1328 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1071 , 99 S.Ct. 841 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979); United States v. Anfield, 539 F.2d 674, 678 (9th Cir.1976); United States v. *832 Sisack, 527 F.2d 917 , 920 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1976); United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter LARM, M.D., and Haruko Larm, Defendants-Appellants (2×)
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 298 , 49 S.Ct. 268, 273 , 73 L.Ed. 692 (1929); United States v. Taylor, 574 F.2d 232, 235 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 893 , 99 S.Ct. 251 , 58 L.Ed.2d 239 (1978); United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir.1975); Carroll v. United States, 16 F.2d 951, 953 (2d Cir.) (cited with approval in Sinclair ), cert. denied, 273 U.S. 763 , 47 S.Ct. 477 , 71 L.Ed. 880 (1927).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Francisco Larranaga
10th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Compare United States v. Valdez, 594 F.2d 725, 729 (9th Cir.1979) (materiality under § 1001 is a question of fact); with United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 557 (9th Cir.1985) (materiality under § 1623 is a question of law); and United States v. Dipp, 581 F.2d 1323, 1328 (9th Cir. 1978) (same), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1071 , 99 S.Ct. 841 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979); and United States v. Sisack, 527 F.2d 917 , 920 n. 2 (9th Cir.1975) (same); and United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir.1975) (same). 2 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Alex J. Raineri
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
See United States v. Whimpy, 531 F.2d 768, 770 (5th Cir. 1976) (anything that could influence or mislead); United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir. 1975) (relevant to any subsidiary issue under consideration); United States v. Koonce, 485 F.2d 374, 380 (8th Cir. 1973) (tending to influence, mislead, or hamper).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Pearce
E.D. Pa. · 1977 · confidence medium
Quoting United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190-91 (9th Cir. 1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Sisack
9th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190-191 (9th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Henry Porter, Jr.
9th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir.1975)
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Franke Eugenio Martinez (2×)
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The government need not show that the falsity in fact impeded its inquiries; it is enough if it “has a tendency to influence, impede, or hamper a tribunal from pursuing its investigation.” Anfield, 539 F.2d at 678 ; see also United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir.1975) (commenting on a conviction for perjury before the grand jury, the court noted that materiality is tested as of the time the false statement is given.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Franke Eugenio Martinez (2×)
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The government need not show that the falsity in fact impeded its inquiries; it is enough if it "has a tendency to influence, impede, or hamper a tribunal from pursuing its investigation." Anfield, 539 F.2d at 678 ; see also United States v. Percell, 526 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir.1975) (commenting on a conviction for perjury before the grand jury, the court noted that materiality is tested as of the time the false statement is given.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Selvin PERCELL, Defendant-Appellant
75--1288.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 14, 1975.
526 F.2d 189
Raymond E. Sutton (argued), Las Vegas, Nev., for defendant-appellant., Richard A. Wright, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee.
Trask, Sneed, Plummer.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

Before TRASK and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER, * District Judge. PLUMMER, Senior District Judge:

After a trial by jury appellant (hereinafter Percell) was convicted of the offense of making false declarations before a grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that Percell’s false declarations before the grand jury were material, and in denying PercelTs motions for judgment of acquittal.

Percell contends that the declarations which led to his conviction were not material to the proceedings under consideration by the grand jury. Percell simply does not understand the pertinent law on the issue of materiality. The only requirement is that the question be material to a subject of grand jury inquiry. The evidence need not be material to the main issue and it need not be directed to the primary subject of the investigation. It is material if it is relevant to any subsidiary issue then under consideration. United States v. Tyrone, 451 F.2d 16 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Lococo, 450 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1971). It is not even necessary for the government to prove the false declarations actually impeded the grand jury investigation. United States v. Lococo, supra; Vitello v. United States, 425 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1970). Materiality is tested as of the time the investigation is being made. Later proof that a truthful declaration would not have helped the grand jury does not render the false testimony immaterial. United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138 (2nd Cir. 1970).

It is well established under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 that a false declaration is material if it has a tendency to influence, impede or hamper the grand jury from pursuing its investigation. United States v. Lococo, supra. The test for materiality is the same under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 and 1623. United States v. Lardieri, 497 F.2d 317 (3rd Cir. 1974).

Materiality of a false declaration in a prosecution for making a false material declaration is a question of law for the trial court to determine. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692 (1929); Vitello v. United States, 425 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Demopoulos, 506 F.2d 1171 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Paolicelli, 505 F.2d 971 (4th Cir. 1974); Tasby v. United States, 504 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Koonce, 485 F.2d 374 (8th Cir. 1973).

We hold that in the present case this issue was correctly decided by the trial court.

The test to be applied in reviewing the trial court’s decision denying Percell’s motions for judgment of acquittal requires that the evidence be considered in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury. From our evaluation of all the evidence, we are satisfied that the jurors reasonably could decide that they would not hesitate to act in[*191] their serious affairs upon factual assumptions as probable as the conclusion that Percell was guilty as charged in the indictment. We find there is sufficient relevant evidence, from which, if considered most favorably to the government, the jury could rationally and properly find or infer beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty as charged.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.