## Facts

- Quillin Porter operated investment clubs that issued newsletters to investors describing trades and returns.
- Porter pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud and one securities-law violation and agreed to testify in grand jury proceedings.
- In grand jury testimony, Porter stated that he sent monthly newsletters to investors, that he falsified information in them, and that he was responsible for preparing them.
- Porter later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; at the evidentiary hearing, he testified that he did not plead guilty because he was guilty and that he did not mail newsletters, did not know who mailed them, and did not know who generated them.
- The government indicted Porter under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(c) for making materially “irreconcilably contradictory declarations” under oath based on the grand jury testimony and § 2255 hearing testimony.
- At the perjury trial, evidence included testimony that Porter provided newsletter information while employees typed, copied, stuffed envelopes, and took the mailings to the post office at his request.
- The district court denied Porter’s motion for judgment of acquittal; a jury convicted him of perjury under § 1623(c).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Porter made two sworn declarations “inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false,” as required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(c).

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the perjury conviction.
- The court held the government failed to prove the required element of “irreconcilably contradictory” declarations under § 1623(c).
- Even viewing the evidence in the government’s favor, Porter’s statements about “sending out” or being responsible for newsletters could be reconciled with a denial that he personally “mailed” them.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(c), the government must prove the defendant knowingly made two or more material declarations under oath that are “irreconcilably contradictory,” meaning “inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false.”
- § 1623(c) does not reach mere inconsistency, ambiguity, or testimony that can be reconciled through differing meanings (e.g., responsibility for communications versus personally placing items in the mail).
- Where the asserted contradiction turns on a distinction supported by trial evidence—such as directing others to mail items versus physically mailing them—the “necessarily false” requirement is not met, and the conviction cannot stand as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit reversed Porter’s § 1623(c) perjury conviction because the government did not establish that his sworn statements were irreconcilably contradictory; the evidence permitted both accounts to be true when “sending” newsletters was distinguished from personally “mailing” them.


United States v. Porter, 994 F.2d 470 (8th Cir. 1993)