United States v. Buckner, 207.

• Decision Date: 24 March 1941
• Docket Number: No. 207.,207.
• Citation: United States v. Buckner, 118 F.2d 468 (2nd Cir. 1941)
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BUCKNER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

118 F.2d 468 (1941)

UNITED STATES v.BUCKNER.

No. 207.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 24, 1941.

Joseph H. Wackerman, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellantJosie Buckner.

Harold M. Kennedy, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Vine H. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for perjury.The indictment charged that on August 8, 1939, the defendant was sworn as a witness before the grand jury of the United States in the Eastern District of New York and gave testimony concerning her observation of two police officers in the vicinity of Jamaica, Long Island, which testimony was relevant and material to the matter then under investigation before the grand jury, namely, whether the officers were parties to an illegal conspiracy to maintain an illicit still at premises 115-32 158th Street, Jamaica.The indictment set forth that in the course of her testimony she swore that on or about May 20, 1939, she observed the premises in question for about an hour, that she saw the two police officers enter the premises and did not see them leave.The indictment further charged that these statements made by the defendant were false to her knowledge, in that she did not see the two police officers enter the premises, did not keep the premises under observation for an hour and that her testimony as given before the grand jury "was in all respects false and untrue as the said defendant * * * then and there well knew."

The police officers were indicted with others for a conspiracy to maintain the still.Josie Buckner, the defendant in this action, testified at the trial of the officers, who were acquitted.The indictment for perjury followed.

At the trial of the indictment for perjury the grand jury stenographer verified the testimony given by the defendant Buckner at its investigation.It appeared therefrom that, after being sworn by the foreman, she had testified that she saw the officers enter the premises in question and did not see them leave.The stenographer who took the minutes at the trial of the police officers before Judge Inch was called as a witness at the perjury trial.He said that the defendant testified at the trial before Judge Inch that she did not see the officers enter the house, that what she had sworn to before the grand jury was untrue and was said "to save her husband".She took the stand at the perjury trial in her own behalf and swore that she had testified before the grand jury that she saw the officers enter the premises because her husband was suspected of running the still and had threatened her if she did not so testify in order to throw the blame on the officers and shift it from his own shoulders.She said that her testimony before the grand jury had been ...