Perjury – Materiality

Listen to this article

Perjury – Materiality

Where a former police officer lied under oath in a civil lawsuit alleging unlawful interrogation, the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for perjury.

“The question of whether the Chicago Police Department had a policy or practice of torturing suspects was a core component of Hobley’s civil suit. In covering up Burge’s record of torture, the false interrogatory responses withheld key evidence relevant to the civil suit. Therefore, materiality does not turn on whether Burge’s answers were ‘used’ in the Hobley trial. His false statements could not be introduced precisely because he had concealed relevant evidence. And while Burge is correct that Hobley had to prove constitutional injury to prevail in his suit, that issue is irrelevant to the materiality of Burge’s lies. Whether the City of Chicago could be held liable for a policy or practice of torture is plainly distinct from whether evidence in the form of an interrogatory answer is material to determining whether the contested policy or practice exists. So the question before the jury was whether Burge’s false statement had ‘the natural tendency to impede, influence or dissuade’ the outcome of Hobley’s civil suit—not whether the suit’s outcome actually turned on the Burge’s lies. Howard, 560 F.2d at 284.

Hobley alleged a policy or practice of torture. Burge’s false responses regarding these very accusations are plainly material.”

Affirmed.

11-1277 U.S. v. Burge

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Lefkow, J., Williams, J.

Full Text