## Facts

- Samuel Bronston owned and served as president of a motion picture company that conducted substantial business in Europe and maintained many foreign bank accounts.
- In the company’s Chapter XI bankruptcy proceeding, Bronston testified under oath at a bankruptcy examination concerning the location and extent of assets, including possible Swiss bank accounts.
- In response to questions about Swiss bank accounts, Bronston denied having Swiss bank accounts and, when asked if he ever had one, answered that the company had maintained a Swiss account for about six months in Zurich.
- It was undisputed that Bronston had previously maintained a personal Swiss bank account in Geneva for nearly five years and conducted significant transactions through it.
- It was also undisputed that Bronston’s answers were literally true, but the government argued they were misleading because they implied he personally never had a Swiss account.
- Bronston was indicted and convicted of perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 in federal district court; the Second Circuit affirmed on a “false by negative implication” theory.

## Issues

1. Whether a witness may be convicted of perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 for testimony that is literally true but unresponsive and arguably misleading by negative implication, even if intended to mislead.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
- The Court held that § 1621 does not apply to answers that are literally true but unresponsive, even if intended to mislead and arguably misleading by implication.
- Because the prosecution did not prove a willfully false statement, the conviction could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 requires a willfully false statement made under oath; literal truth defeats the falsity element.
- Courts may not extend the perjury statute to cover statements that are not false under their literal meaning.
- The adversary process places the burden on the examiner to ask precise, follow-up questions to cure evasive or incomplete but literally true testimony.
- Criminal liability cannot rest on inferred meanings from ambiguous questions or “negative implications” where the words spoken are true.

## Conclusion

The Court limited federal perjury to willfully false statements and rejected liability based on evasive but literally true answers, placing responsibility on questioners to clarify and obtain responsive testimony through precise examination.


Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973)