## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida investigated alleged price-fixing in the southern Florida bond paper market.
- William C. Scrimgeour testified before the grand jury and denied attending price-fixing meetings described by another witness.
- The prosecutor twice warned Scrimgeour about perjury penalties and offered him opportunities to correct his testimony; he declined.
- Scrimgeour’s counsel later contacted the government about possible perjury and sought the grand jury transcript; the government refused absent a court order under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e).
- Another witness later returned to the grand jury and implicated Scrimgeour; counsel indicated awareness that this witness had testified against Scrimgeour.
- Scrimgeour, through new counsel, informed the government he had lied and sought to return to the grand jury to correct his testimony.
- Scrimgeour subsequently testified again and admitted his earlier statements were false.
- A grand jury indicted Scrimgeour on five counts of knowingly making false material declarations under oath in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1623(d)’s recantation clause bars prosecution when either statutory condition is met (disjunctive reading) or only when both are met (conjunctive reading).
2. Whether, under the correct interpretation, Scrimgeour’s admission of falsity satisfied § 1623(d) so as to require dismissal of the indictment.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the indictment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court interpreted § 1623(d) conjunctively: recantation bars prosecution only if (1) the false declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding and (2) it had not become manifest that the falsity had been or would be exposed when the admission was made.
- The court held the statutory bar did not apply because, at the time Scrimgeour sought to recant, it had become manifest that his false testimony would be exposed.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(d), recantation is a narrow exception that precludes prosecution only when both statutory conditions are satisfied at the time of the admission.
- “Or” in § 1623(d) is construed to require that the false statement neither substantially affected the proceeding nor had reached the point where exposure was manifest.
- A witness cannot avoid § 1623 liability by recanting after learning that other testimony or evidence has made exposure of the false declaration apparent.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit reinstated the perjury indictment, holding that § 1623(d) protects only timely recantations made before the false testimony has meaningfully impacted the proceeding and before exposure of the falsity has become manifest.


United States v. Scrimgeour, 636 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1981)