## Facts

- James M. Chaplin owned a construction firm that contracted with Wisconsin to build pit toilets in state parks; the state declared the contracts in default in May 1990 and sought return of delivered materials.
- In August 1990 state-court testimony, Chaplin claimed certain materials were stored in a trailer at a specified park location; investigators later could not find the trailer or materials there.
- Chaplin filed for bankruptcy on October 15, 1990; the surety (Transamerica) pursued claims and adversary proceedings in the bankruptcy case.
- In bankruptcy depositions under oath, Chaplin made statements later charged as perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621:
  - Count Two: when asked whether he gave his father-in-law, Joseph Voss, $8,000 in cash on October 23, 1990, Chaplin stated he did not recall doing so.
  - Count Three: shown a photograph depicting materials in Voss’s garage, Chaplin denied storing materials there and stated he did not recall doing so.
  - Count Four: Chaplin denied removing the materials from Voss’s garage.
- The government introduced bank records showing an $8,000 deposit into Voss’s account on October 23, 1990, and witness testimony concerning storage and later removal of materials from Voss’s garage.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain perjury convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 when the “two-witness rule” requires either two witnesses or one witness plus independent corroboration establishing falsity.
2. Whether the government met that burden for statements framed as “I do not recall,” including proof that the defendant’s professed lack of memory was knowingly false.
3. Whether the evidence supporting each of Counts Two through Four satisfied the two-witness rule.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its disposition.
- Count Two (cash payment on October 23, 1990): reversed for insufficiency under the two-witness rule.
- Count Three (storage of materials in Voss’s garage): affirmed; one-witness testimony plus independent corroboration was sufficient.
- Count Four (removal of materials): affirmed; testimony provided the required corroboration under the two-witness rule.

## Legal Principles

- In prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, falsity must be proven under the traditional two-witness rule: either (1) two independent witnesses, or (2) one witness plus independent corroborating evidence inconsistent with innocence.
- Corroboration must be strong and independent; evidence that merely raises suspicion, shows improbability, or attacks general credibility does not satisfy the rule.
- A statement of claimed lack of memory can constitute perjury only if the government proves the witness actually remembered and knowingly testified falsely about that recollection, and the proof must satisfy the two-witness rule.
- Documentary or circumstantial proof can corroborate a witness, but it must establish the falsity of the defendant’s specific sworn assertion, not merely suggest that an event likely occurred.

## Conclusion

The court held that § 1621 perjury remains subject to the two-witness rule and that “I don’t recall” answers require proof of knowing falsity under that standard; the government failed to corroborate the precise-date cash-payment allegation (Count Two) but sufficiently corroborated the storage and removal allegations (Counts Three and Four), requiring partial reversal and remand.


United States v. Chaplin, 25 F.3d 1373 (7th Cir. 1994)