DOJ-OGR-00003721.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page13 of 16 court held that the ambiguity of both questions rendered the answers insufficient as a matter of law to support a perjury conviction. The courts holding is equally applicable here: Precise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury. A perjury conviction cannot be based upon evasive answers or even upon misleading answers so long as they are literally true. In the face of evasion or misleading answers, it is the lawyer's duty to bring the witness back to the mark, to flush out the whole truth with the tools of adversary examination. When a line of questioning is so vague as to be fundamentally ambiguous, the answers associated with the questions posed may be insufficient as a matter of law to support a perjury conviction (cleaned up). And, finally, although there are more, in United States v. Bonds, 580 F. Supp. 2d 925, 931 (N.D. Cal. 2008), the court ruled that using the terms “anything like” in connection with a perjury prosecution in a professional baseball steroid investigation created a serious problem. The government argued, similar to the claims here that, in context, this phrase refers to “anything like steroids that could have led to a positive steroid test.” According to the court, the use of the qualifier made the question fundamentally ambiguous requiring dismissal of the count. The government, at page 133 of its Response, incorrectly suggests that the burden was on Ms. Maxwell or her counsel to clarify the confused questions, particularly regarding the infinite time span. First, that is simply wrong. The questioner has the responsibility to ask clear questions and to “pin down” the witness. Cicalese, 863 F. Supp. 2d 231, 236-37. It is the government, not Ms. Maxwell who is engaging in post-hoc definitions about undefined terms “scheme” and “interact with” (Count Five); and about the “presence” of certain items, or Epstein’s possession of “items” used in “activities,” her “awareness” of what Epstein was doing when she wasn’t with him in a “millennium” and giving a “massage.” (Count Six). Because the questions were so bad, the government spends significant energy trying to rationalize what the questioner meant. The answers to the bad, ambiguous, objectionable questions were also “literally true.” Bronsion v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), makes clear that an individual cannot be DOJ-OGR-00003721