United States. v. Dunn Bench Memorandum
The purpose of this bench memorandum is to inform the District Court Judge on the significance of Dunn v. United States in refining 18 U.S.C. § 1623, “False declarations before a court or grand jury”, and 18 U.S.C. § 1621, “Perjury generally”, as well as explaining the fundamental purpose of due process. Specifically, this bench memorandum should serve as a reference for District Court judges on how to draft jury instructions about these laws.
Statement of Facts
During a grand jury investigation into Philip Musgrave in June 1976, the District Court called Robert Dunn, Musgrave’s fellow inmate, to testify about Musgrave’s involvement in drug-related crimes. The District Court gave Dunn a grant of immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002. Under the grant of immunity, Dunn testified and implicated Philip Musgrave in drug-related crimes. After Dunn’s testimony, Musgrave was indicted for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. Following Musgrave’s indictment, on September 30, 1976, Dunn met with Musgrave’s attorney, Michael Canges, at Canges’ office. There, Dunn recanted his grand jury testimony. Dunn did so under oath and in front of a notary public, but without legal counsel. Sometime after the September 30 interview with Dunn, Canges moved to dismiss his client’s indictment. In the motion, Canges claimed that Dunn perjured himself during the grand jury investigation into Musgrave. Canges used Dunn’s statement, given at Canges’ office, as proof. In response, the District Court called an evidentiary hearing on October 21, 1976, in which Dunn adopted his September 30 statement, recanting his grand jury testimony. Finding that Dunn perjured himself, the grand jury reduced Musgrave’s charges and indicted Dunn on five counts of making false declarations. Specifically, the charges outlined that Dunn’s September 30 interview was inconsistent with his original grand jury testimony. After his indictment, Dunn’s case went to trial. During Dunn’s trial, the prosecution included his October 21 testimony as proof of his perjured statements. In response, Dunn moved for acquittal, asserting that he did not violate § 1623 with his September 30 statement, as the statement was not “made in a proceeding ancillary to a federal court or grand jury (Marshall).” Dunn also asserted that it was a violation of § 6002 and his Fifth Amendment rights to use his grand jury testimony to try and prove any violation of § 1623. In its jury instructions to the trial jury, the District Court did not define “proceeding…ancillary to a court or grand jury”, and “instructed the jury that in order to convict Dunn it had to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that [Dunn] ‘while under oath, made irreconcilably contradictory declarations…in any proceeding before or ancillary to a grand jury’ (Marshall).” Moreover, the District Court, “admonished the jury to render its verdict on the charges alleged in the indictment, which specified June 16, 1976, and September 30, 1976 (Marshall).” The District Court denied Dunn’s motion and the trial jury subsequently convicted him on three counts of making false declarations. Procedural Posture After the trial jury convicted Dunn on three counts of making false declarations, he appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of …show more content…
Courts are therefore required to follow the law in any trial. Specifically, juries are not allowed to find a defendant guilty of crimes in which he or she was not charged. You should determine a defendant’s guilt only of crimes in which he or she was charged.
When considering a defendant’s guilt of a crime, you must weigh all the relevant, and formally submitted, evidence. Only then, can you make a decision that a defendant is guilty of a crime in which a grand jury indicted him or her on, beyond a reasonable doubt. […]” The significance of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dunn v. U.S. rests in the way it clarified the basic laws that affect perjury cases. Specifically, the analysis of “proceeding…ancillary to” phrase in § 1623 only leaves room for formal, court-authorized, legal proceedings that are carried out in court-approved locations. Further, the Supreme Court’s holding concerning the nature of due process explicitly states that individuals only be tried and possibly convicted for crimes in which they were charged. Therefore, Dunn v. U.S. can serve as adequate precedent in determining the nature of jury instructions and the ultimate decisions in perjury
The purpose of this bench memorandum is to inform the District Court Judge on the significance of Dunn v. United States in refining 18 U.S.C. § 1623, “False declarations before a court or grand jury”, and 18 U.S.C. § 1621, “Perjury generally”, as well as explaining the fundamental purpose of due process. Specifically, this bench memorandum should serve as a reference for District Court judges on how to draft jury instructions about these laws.
Statement of Facts
During a grand jury investigation into Philip Musgrave in June 1976, the District Court called Robert Dunn, Musgrave’s fellow inmate, to testify about Musgrave’s involvement in drug-related crimes. The District Court gave Dunn a grant of immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002. Under the grant of immunity, Dunn testified and implicated Philip Musgrave in drug-related crimes. After Dunn’s testimony, Musgrave was indicted for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. Following Musgrave’s indictment, on September 30, 1976, Dunn met with Musgrave’s attorney, Michael Canges, at Canges’ office. There, Dunn recanted his grand jury testimony. Dunn did so under oath and in front of a notary public, but without legal counsel. Sometime after the September 30 interview with Dunn, Canges moved to dismiss his client’s indictment. In the motion, Canges claimed that Dunn perjured himself during the grand jury investigation into Musgrave. Canges used Dunn’s statement, given at Canges’ office, as proof. In response, the District Court called an evidentiary hearing on October 21, 1976, in which Dunn adopted his September 30 statement, recanting his grand jury testimony. Finding that Dunn perjured himself, the grand jury reduced Musgrave’s charges and indicted Dunn on five counts of making false declarations. Specifically, the charges outlined that Dunn’s September 30 interview was inconsistent with his original grand jury testimony. After his indictment, Dunn’s case went to trial. During Dunn’s trial, the prosecution included his October 21 testimony as proof of his perjured statements. In response, Dunn moved for acquittal, asserting that he did not violate § 1623 with his September 30 statement, as the statement was not “made in a proceeding ancillary to a federal court or grand jury (Marshall).” Dunn also asserted that it was a violation of § 6002 and his Fifth Amendment rights to use his grand jury testimony to try and prove any violation of § 1623. In its jury instructions to the trial jury, the District Court did not define “proceeding…ancillary to a court or grand jury”, and “instructed the jury that in order to convict Dunn it had to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that [Dunn] ‘while under oath, made irreconcilably contradictory declarations…in any proceeding before or ancillary to a grand jury’ (Marshall).” Moreover, the District Court, “admonished the jury to render its verdict on the charges alleged in the indictment, which specified June 16, 1976, and September 30, 1976 (Marshall).” The District Court denied Dunn’s motion and the trial jury subsequently convicted him on three counts of making false declarations. Procedural Posture After the trial jury convicted Dunn on three counts of making false declarations, he appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of …show more content…
Courts are therefore required to follow the law in any trial. Specifically, juries are not allowed to find a defendant guilty of crimes in which he or she was not charged. You should determine a defendant’s guilt only of crimes in which he or she was charged.
When considering a defendant’s guilt of a crime, you must weigh all the relevant, and formally submitted, evidence. Only then, can you make a decision that a defendant is guilty of a crime in which a grand jury indicted him or her on, beyond a reasonable doubt. […]” The significance of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dunn v. U.S. rests in the way it clarified the basic laws that affect perjury cases. Specifically, the analysis of “proceeding…ancillary to” phrase in § 1623 only leaves room for formal, court-authorized, legal proceedings that are carried out in court-approved locations. Further, the Supreme Court’s holding concerning the nature of due process explicitly states that individuals only be tried and possibly convicted for crimes in which they were charged. Therefore, Dunn v. U.S. can serve as adequate precedent in determining the nature of jury instructions and the ultimate decisions in perjury