Two-Witness Rule For Perjury

29 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Eldred J. Paternostro v. United States
  311 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1962-11-07 ·cited 116×
  The court held that an 'exculpatory no' answer to an investigative agent, without affirmative misstatement, does not violate 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001.
• Catrino v. United States
  176 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1949-08-19 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the obstruction of justice statute and the subornation of perjury statute can be violated by the same conduct, and that inconsistent jury verdicts are permissible.
• United States v. Neff
  212 F.2d 297· 3d Cir.· 1954-04-01 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the corroborating evidence presented for the first count of perjury was insufficient as a matter of law, and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence related to individuals not named in the original bills of particulars for the second count.
• United States v. Ruggiero
  472 F.2d 599· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defense access to grand jury testimony of witnesses, as there was no suppression of exculpatory evidence and the defense had means to obtain the testimony.
• Ward v. State
  83 Fla. 311· Fla.· 1922-02-23 ·cited 47×
  George Ward was convicted of perjury for allegedly giving false testimony in a larceny trial that he had been offered a bribe. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictment was sufficiently specific and the evidence met the two-witness corroborati
• United States v. Freedman
  445 F.2d 1220· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that evidence of prior similar acts is admissible to prove intent in a perjury case, but a perjury conviction requires proof of materiality and sufficient corroboration under the two-witness rule. A conviction based on an immaterial statement or insufficient corrob
• Young v. United States
  212 F.2d 236· D.C. Cir.· 1954-04-08 ·cited 39×
  A conviction for perjury is valid if the indictment sufficiently states the essential facts of the offense and the evidence supports the conviction, even if the jury selection had minor irregularities or the legislative committee's purpose was mixed.
• United States v. Swainson
  548 F.2d 657· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator tapes was proper, even with an acquittal on the conspiracy charge, because independent evidence established a prima facie case of conspiracy, and that the perjury convictions were supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Flores-Rodriguez
  237 F.2d 405· 2d Cir.· 1956-10-01 ·cited 32×
  The concurring judge agrees with the majority's primary reason for the decision, which is that the defendant knowingly failed to disclose a prior conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
• Cargill v. United States
  381 F.2d 849· 10th Cir.· 1967-08-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appellant's request for grand jury testimony transcripts for impeachment purposes, as required by Dennis v. United States.
• United States v. Erhardt
  381 F.2d 173· 6th Cir.· 1967-08-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the two-witness rule requires reversal of the perjury conviction, and that 18 U.S.C. § 1001 does not apply to false documents introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding.
• McClerkin v. State
  20 Fla. 879· Fla.· 1884-06-01 ·cited 24×
  Robert McClerkin was convicted of perjury for testifying that a hickory stick was the weapon used in an assault when witnesses established the actual weapon was a loaded rattan stick. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that perjury charges can be proved by
• United States v. Maultasch
  596 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1979-02-22 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the perjury convictions, finding that the admissibility of prior consistent statements was properly handled and that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the two-witness rule for perjury.
• Doan v. United States
  202 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1953-02-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding witness testimony and prosecutorial arguments.
• Fraser v. United States
  145 F.2d 145· 6th Cir.· 1944-10-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the two-witness rule for perjury, requiring reversal as to one count, but affirmed the conviction on another count where the evidence was independently sufficient.
• Brady L. Prevatt v. State
  135 Fla. 226· Fla.· 1938-11-28 ·cited 22×
  Brady L. Prevatt was convicted of perjury for falsely testifying in a child custody proceeding that the mother, Bobbie Sutcliffe Miller, was frequently intoxicated and disorderly at a local casino. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, rejecting challenges to the suf
• Adams v. United States
  191 F.2d 206· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove perjury and that the jury instructions were not prejudicial.
• Maragon v. United States
  187 F.2d 79· D.C. Cir.· 1950-10-23 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a perjury conviction and that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the requirement of wilfulness.
• United States v. Johnson
  414 F.2d 22· 6th Cir.· 1969-06-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant was denied a fair trial by the refusal to allow her attorney access to the grand jury testimony of her accusers.
• United States v. Bergman
  354 F.2d 931· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the perjury convictions and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or comments during summation.
• United States v. Kendrick
  692 F.2d 1262· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's actions in pledging customer securities as collateral for loans, without authorization and with misrepresentations, constituted a "sale" of securities in violation of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and that the evidence was sufficient to support his p
• United States v. Ford
  603 F.2d 1043· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-06 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed convictions for wire fraud and perjury, holding that inconsistent jury verdicts are permissible and that sufficient evidence supported the wire fraud and perjury convictions.
• United States v. Brandyberry
  438 F.2d 226· 9th Cir.· 1971-02-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of perjury on all counts, and that no reversible error was committed regarding the admission of hearsay testimony.
• Womack v. State
  283 So. 2d 573· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-10-12 ·cited 4×
  Appellant's perjury convictions reversed because the State presented only one witness's testimony without independent corroborating evidence, violating Florida's requirement that perjury be proved by two witnesses or one witness plus corroborating circumstances of equal weight.
• United States v. Solomon Green
  421 F.2d 1237· 2d Cir.· 1970-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction for perjury and conspiracy, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting the defendant's arguments.
• Al MAY v. United States
  280 F.2d 555· 6th Cir.· 1960-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the two-witness rule for perjury is satisfied even if witnesses testify to the falsity of different factual components of the same overall false statement, and that the materiality of testimony is determined at the time it is given.
• Duval v. State
  104 So. 2d 789· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-08-29 ·cited 4×
  Alice Loraine Duval was convicted of perjury for allegedly giving contradictory testimony under oath at two separate hearings regarding whether she witnessed her husband's criminal assault on her daughter. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that
• United States v. ALU
  236 F.2d 179· 3d Cir.· 1956-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government failed to meet the strict proof requirements for a perjury conviction.
• United States v. Grayson Diggs
  560 F.2d 266· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Government's evidence was sufficient to satisfy the two-witness rule for a perjury conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1621.