## Facts

- Terrance Alan Eddy was previously tried under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 for allegedly making false statements to influence a federally insured bank and was acquitted.
- During that earlier case, the district court held an in-camera hearing where Eddy testified under oath and was cross-examined about alleged use of falsified Ohio State University medical and academic documents to enlist as a Navy physician.
- A later indictment charged Eddy with two counts of perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) based on allegedly false declarations made during the in-camera hearing.
- Count I focused on Eddy’s denials that he had claimed to be an Ohio State University medical graduate, sought to join the Navy “as a doctor,” or submitted an Ohio State University College of Medicine diploma as proof.
- Count II focused on Eddy’s asserted lack of recollection about going to a hospital and attempting to secure staff privileges by presenting medical-credential materials.
- At the perjury trial, the government presented witnesses and documents supporting that Eddy had held himself out as a doctor, submitted fabricated credentials, and sought hospital privileges using credential-type documents.
- Eddy moved to dismiss, arguing the indictment was insufficient, the questions were ambiguous, and the prosecution was vindictive due to his earlier acquittal; the district court denied the motions and a jury convicted on both counts.

## Issues

1. Whether the § 1623 indictment sufficiently identified the alleged false declarations and their materiality to provide notice and protect against double jeopardy.
2. Whether the questions underlying the charged answers were so ambiguous that the answers could not support perjury, and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove knowing falsity and materiality.
3. Whether filing perjury charges after Eddy’s acquittal in the prior case constituted unconstitutional prosecutorial vindictiveness.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions on both perjury counts.
- The court held the indictment adequately set out the proceeding, the relevant questions and answers, and allegations of falsity and materiality.
- The court rejected the ambiguity challenge, concluding the questions, viewed in context, were understandable and could support perjury findings.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Eddy knowingly made false, material declarations on both counts.
- The court found no due process violation from prosecutorial vindictiveness because the perjury charges concerned independent criminal conduct and lacked evidence of retaliatory motive.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1623 indictment is sufficient if it states the offense’s elements, fairly informs the defendant of the charge, and enables a conviction or acquittal to be pleaded as a bar to later prosecution; it may do so by identifying the proceeding and setting out the questions, answers, and allegations of falsity and materiality.
- Perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 requires proof that the defendant, under oath in a federal court proceeding, knowingly made a false declaration that was material to the matter before the court.
- A perjury conviction is not barred merely because a defendant claims ambiguity in the questioning; the inquiry is whether, in context, the questions were sufficiently clear for a jury to find the defendant understood them and answered falsely.
- Prosecutorial vindictiveness requires a basis for a presumption of vindictiveness or proof of actual retaliatory motive; charging perjury based on sworn testimony in a prior case, without more, does not establish vindictiveness.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit sustained Eddy’s § 1623 perjury convictions, concluding that the indictment provided adequate notice, the challenged questions were clear enough to support perjury findings, the government proved knowing falsity and materiality, and the record did not show unconstitutional prosecutorial vindictiveness arising from Eddy’s earlier acquittal.


United States v. Eddy, 737 F.2d 564 (6th Cir. 1984)