The court held that the federal
perjury statute does not prohibit an answer «that is literally true, but unresponsive, even assuming the witness intends to mislead his questioner by the answer, and even assuming the answer is arguably «false by negative implication»».
Represented an attorney alleged to have participated in violations of Ohio's RICO, Tampering with Evidence and
Perjury statutes stemming from investigation into activities of public officials in Mahoning County (Youngstown), Ohio, resulting in no charges.