The Limits of Literal Truth as Defense to Perjury (or Even 18 USC 1001)

Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) is frequently cited for the proposition that literal truth is a defense to a charge of perjury. Actually, Bronston involved an unresponsive literal truth to a question not asked with the answer intended to mislead (or at least avoid the question that was not asked). Usually, the battle ground is not the unresponsive answer where the defendant raises Bronston as a defense to perjury but the responsive answer that the defendant argues is literally true. Consider this example based on United States v. Thomas, 612 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) involving a charge of perjury from a Q&A in a grand jury room.

Q. Did the drug dealer give you the drugs?

A. No.

Read more »