James Arena v. United States

In a perjury case, the rule requiring corroboration of a single witness as to the falsity of the defendant’s testimony is, like Iago’s wine, “a good familiar creature, if it be well used.”

But when the rule is. perverted so as to require the prosecution to “prove its case twice”, it cannot be said to be “well used”.

The appellant, however, professes that he “does not contend that the government should be compelled to prove its case twice”. He also complains that “Appellee’s brief incorrectly attributes to appellant the proposition that ‘the corroborative evidence must “of itself” prove guilt’ ”. Yet such double proof is precisely what the appellant exacts of the appellee when he says:

The law does not demand of the ap-pellee so inordinate a measure of proof. 1. Statement of the Case The indictment charged the appellant in two counts with violations of 18 U.S. C.A. § 1621, infra. The District Court entered a judgment of acquittal on the second count. The charging part of the first count is set out in full in the margin.

The jury found that appellant was guilty on the first count, and he received a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.

Section 1621, the perjury statute, reads…