## Facts

- A Senate subcommittee investigating wartime contracting heard sworn testimony from Blériot H. Lamarre concerning Aviation Electric Corporation and Bennett E. Meyers’s relationship to it.
- The government alleged Lamarre falsely testified that Meyers had no financial interest in the company after 1942 and made related false statements about benefits (including a Cadillac and apartment expenditures) allegedly reflecting a concealed interest.
- A grand jury returned a six-count indictment: three counts charged Lamarre with perjury based on the Senate testimony, and three counts charged Meyers with subornation of that perjury.
- Lamarre pleaded guilty to the perjury counts; Meyers proceeded to jury trial and presented no defense evidence.
- At trial, the government called the subcommittee’s counsel, who testified from firsthand recollection (and notes) to the substance of Lamarre’s Senate testimony before the official transcript was introduced.
- The jury convicted Meyers on all three subornation counts; the district court denied a motion for judgment of acquittal.
- Meyers appealed, arguing evidentiary error under the best-evidence rule and insufficient proof (among other claims).

## Issues

1. Whether the best-evidence rule required the government to prove alleged perjurious Senate testimony exclusively through the official stenographic transcript, rather than through testimony of a witness who heard it and related notes.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Lamarre’s perjury and that Meyers willfully procured it, and whether the manner of proof created reversible prejudice or a material variance from the indictment.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions for subornation of perjury.
- The court held the best-evidence rule did not bar testimony from a witness who heard the Senate testimony, even though an official transcript existed.
- The court concluded the sequence of presenting oral proof before introducing the transcript did not require reversal where the evidence was otherwise competent and the jury ultimately received the relevant materials.
- The court found the evidence sufficient for a rational jury to determine Lamarre’s statements were knowingly false and that Meyers procured them.

## Legal Principles

- In federal practice, the best-evidence rule is limited to situations in which the contents of a writing are being proved.
- When the fact to be proved is an oral statement (including prior sworn testimony), that statement may be proved by competent evidence such as testimony from a person who heard it, shorthand notes, or other reliable proof; an official transcript is not the exclusive means of proof.
- Subornation of perjury requires proof that the witness knowingly made false material statements under oath and that the defendant willfully procured the false testimony.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Meyers’s subornation convictions and clarified that the best-evidence rule does not require an official transcript as the sole proof of prior oral testimony; a listener’s testimony and related notes are admissible when the event to be proved is what was said, not the contents of a writing.


Meyers v. United States, 171 F.2d 800 (D.C. Cir. 1948)