http://www.oyez.org/issues/criminal-procedure/false-statements/ U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>When questioned by federal agents as to the receipt of gifts or money from a company whose employees were members of the union in which he was an officer, James Brogan falsely answered "no." Brogan was subsequently indicted on federal bribery charges and the making of false statements within a federal agency's jurisdiction. Brogan challenged his conviction, arguing that false statements which merely deny wrongdoing, and do not impede federal functions, are protected under the Fifth Amendment. On appeal from an appeals court judgment upholding an adverse district court ruling, the Supreme Court granted Brogan certiorari.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_1579/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_172/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1013/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_92/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_620/ <p>Jerry E. Wells and Kenneth R. Steele were charged with knowingly making false and "material" statements to a federally insured bank in violation of federal law. At the trial's end, the District Court instructed the jury, at the Government's request, that withholding a "material fact" made a statement or representation false and that materiality of an allegedly false statement was for the judge, not the jury, to determine. Subsequently, the jury treated Wells and Steele's statements as material and convicted them. The U.S. Supreme Court then decided that materiality was a question for the jury to decide. On appeal, Wells and Steele argued that materiality was an element of knowingly making false and "material" statements to a federally insured bank in violation of federal law and it was a question for the jury to decide. The Government then argued materiality was not an element of the crime, so that no harm had been done when the trial judge had dealt with the issue. The Court of Appeals agreed with Wells and Steele, vacated their convictions and sentences, and remanded the case for a new trial.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1228/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_346/